LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>
To: Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	esandeen@redhat.com, aviro@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] i_ino uniqueness: alternate approach -- hash the inodes
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 14:58:33 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <45A55379.3040108@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200701082046.l08KkxTB001913@dantu.rdu.redhat.com>

Jeff Layton wrote:
> Resending this set of patches to the list per Al Viro's request. I've gotten
> no comments so far, so I'll presume that denotes consent and just ask Andrew
> to merge them if I don't hear anything after this ;-).
> 
> ------[snip]-----
> 
> Since Joern mentioned that he thought that hashing the inodes might be simpler
> and not have a drastic performance impact, I took the liberty of whipping up
> some patches that use that approach. They follow in the next set of emails.
> 
> To reiterate, the problems are:
> 
> 1) on filesystems w/o permanent inode numbers, i_ino values can be
> larger than 32 bits, which can cause problems for some 32 bit userspace
> programs on a 64 bit kernel. We can't do anything for filesystems that have
> actual >32-bit inode numbers, but on filesystems that generate i_ino
> values on the fly, we should try to have them fit in 32 bits. We could
> trivially fix this by making the static counters in new_inode and iunique
> 32 bits, but...
> 
> 2) many filesystems call new_inode and assume that the i_ino values they
> are given are unique. They are not guaranteed to be so, since the static
> counter can wrap. This problem is exacerbated by the fix for #1.
> 
> 3) after allocating a new inode, some filesystems call iunique to try to
> get a unique i_ino value, but they don't actually add their inodes to
> the hashtable, and so they're still not guaranteed to be unique if that
> counter wraps.
> 
> This patch set takes the simpler approach of simply using iunique and
> hashing the inodes afterward. Christoph H. previously mentioned that he
> thought that this approach may slow down lookups for filesystems that
> currently hash their inodes.
> 
> The questions are:
> 
> 1) how much would this slow down lookups for these filesystems?
> 2) is it enough to justify adding more infrastructure to avoid it?
> 
> What might be best is to start with this approach and then only move to using
> IDR or some other scheme if these extra inodes in the hashtable prove to be
> problematic.
> 
> I've done some cursory testing with this patch and the overhead of hashing
> and unhashing the inodes with pipefs is pretty low -- just a few seconds of
> system time added on to the creation and destruction of 10 million pipes (very
> similar to the overhead that the IDR approach would add).
> 
> The hard thing to measure is what effect this has on other filesystems. I'm
> open to ways to try and gauge this.
> 
> Again, I've only converted pipefs as an example. If this approach is
> acceptable then I'll start work on patches to convert other filesystems.
> 
> Comments and suggestions welcome...

The first two seem fine to me; I'm still thinking about how the
un-hashing works in the 3rd one.

Thanks,
-Eric

  reply	other threads:[~2007-01-10 20:58 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2007-01-08 20:46 Jeff Layton
2007-01-10 20:58 ` Eric Sandeen [this message]
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2007-01-16 18:57 Jeff Layton
2007-01-24  4:46 ` Andrew Morton
2007-01-24 14:22   ` Jeff Layton
2007-01-24 15:21     ` Eric Dumazet
2007-01-24 16:57       ` Jeff Layton
2006-12-29 19:10 Jeff Layton

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=45A55379.3040108@redhat.com \
    --to=sandeen@redhat.com \
    --cc=aviro@redhat.com \
    --cc=esandeen@redhat.com \
    --cc=jlayton@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH 0/3] i_ino uniqueness: alternate approach -- hash the inodes' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).