Re: [PATCH 86/87] fs: switch timespec64 fields in inode to discrete integers
"Darrick J. Wong" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.file-systems.ext4,gmane.linux.file-systems,gmane.linux.kernel,gmane.linux.kernel.mm,gmane.linux.ports.ppc64.devel,gmane.linux.drivers.platform.x86.devel,gmane.linux.drivers.rdma,gmane.linux.serial,gmane.linux.usb.general,gmane.linux.kernel.autofs,gmane.comp.file-systems.btrfs,gmane.comp.file-systems.ceph.devel,gmane.comp.file-systems.coda.general,gmane.linux.kernel.efi,gmane.linux.file-systems.f2fs,gmane.linux.uml.devel,gmane.linux.drivers.mtd,gmane.linux.nfs,gmane.comp.file-systems.nilfs.user,gmane.linux.file-systems.ntfs.devel,gmane.linux.hardware.karma.devel,gmane.linux.file-systems.union,gmane.comp.file-systems.reiserfs.general,gmane.linux.kernel.cifs,gmane.network.samba.internals,gmane.linux.kernel.bpf,gmane.linux.network,gmane.comp.security.apparmor,gmane.linux.kernel.lsm |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <20230928171943.GK11439@frogsfrogsfrogs> |
On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 01:06:03PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > On Thu, 2023-09-28 at 11:48 -0400, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 28, 2023, at 07:05, Jeff Layton wrote: > > > This shaves 8 bytes off struct inode, according to pahole. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <[email protected]> > > > > FWIW, this is similar to the approach that Deepa suggested > > back in 2016: > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/ > > > > It was NaKed at the time because of the added complexity, > > though it would have been much easier to do it then, > > as we had to touch all the timespec references anyway. > > > > The approach still seems ok to me, but I'm not sure it's worth > > doing it now if we didn't do it then. > > > > I remember seeing those patches go by. I don't remember that change > being NaK'ed, but I wasn't paying close attention at the time > > Looking at it objectively now, I think it's worth it to recover 8 bytes > per inode and open a 4 byte hole that Amir can use to grow the > i_fsnotify_mask. We might even able to shave off another 12 bytes > eventually if we can move to a single 64-bit word per timestamp. I don't think you can, since btrfs timestamps utilize s64 seconds counting in both directions from the Unix epoch. They also support ns resolution: struct btrfs_timespec { __le64 sec; __le32 nsec; } __attribute__ ((__packed__)); --D > It is a lot of churn though. > -- > Jeff Layton <[email protected]>