[PATCH] tmpfs time granularity fix for [acm]time moving backwards.

[PATCH] tmpfs time granularity fix for [acm]time moving backwards.

[Robin H. Johnson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2371 bytes --]

[Please CC me on replies].

I noticed a strange behavior in a tmpfs file system the other day, while
building packages - occasionally, and seemingly at random, make decided to
rebuild a target. However only on tmpfs.

A file would be created, and if checked, it had a sub-second timestamp.
However, after an utimes related call where sub-seconds should be set, they
were zeroed instead. In the case that a file was created, and utimes(...,NULL)
was used on it in the same second, the timestamp on the file moved backwards.

Puesdo-code of my testcase:
	int fd = creat(name,0644);
	fstat(fd,&st);
	printf("...[acm]time...",...)
	futime(fd,NULL);
	fstat(fd,&st);
	printf("...[acm]time...",...)
	close(fd);

Tested against: linus 2.6.13, linus 2.6.17-rc6.

Test output from a filesystem not supporting sub-second timestamps (ext3, reiserfs):
creat:   m=1149891410.0 c=1149891410.0 a=1149891407.0
futimes: m=1149891410.0 c=1149891410.0 a=1149891410.0

Test output from a filesystem supporting sub-second timestamps (jfs,xfs,ramfs):
creat:   m=1149891452.928796249 c=1149891452.928796249 a=1149891452.928796249
futimes: m=1149891452.928796249 c=1149891452.928796249 a=1149891452.928796249

Test output from the tmpfs filesystem before the fix:
creat:   m=1149892052.562029884 c=1149892052.562029884 a=1149892052.562029884
futimes: m=1149892052.0         c=1149892052.0         a=1149892052.0

Test output from the tmpfs filesystem with the patch below:
creat:   m=1149892086.382150894 c=1149892086.382150894 a=1149892075.473249075
futimes: m=1149892086.383150885 c=1149892086.383150885 a=1149892086.383150885

After some digging, I found that this was being caused by tmpfs not having a
time granularity set, thus inheriting the default 1s granularity.

NOTE: This also indicates there is another bug at the VFS layer, where the
initial timestamp did not have the granularity applied to it.

Signed-off-by: Robin H. Johnson <robbat2@gentoo.org>

--- a/mm/shmem.c
+++ b/mm/shmem.c
@@ -2102,6 +2102,7 @@ #endif
 	sb->s_blocksize_bits = PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT;
 	sb->s_magic = TMPFS_MAGIC;
 	sb->s_op = &shmem_ops;
+	sb->s_time_gran = 1;
 
 	inode = shmem_get_inode(sb, S_IFDIR | mode, 0);
 	if (!inode)

-- 
Robin Hugh Johnson
E-Mail     : robbat2@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP   : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED  F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 241 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] tmpfs time granularity fix for [acm]time moving backwards.

[Jan Engelhardt]

>
>Test output from a filesystem supporting sub-second timestamps (jfs,xfs,ramfs):
>creat:   m=1149891452.928796249 c=1149891452.928796249 a=1149891452.928796249
>futimes: m=1149891452.928796249 c=1149891452.928796249 a=1149891452.928796249
>
>Test output from the tmpfs filesystem with the patch below:
>creat:   m=1149892086.382150894 c=1149892086.382150894 a=1149892075.473249075
>futimes: m=1149892086.383150885 c=1149892086.383150885 a=1149892086.383150885
>
Is it normal that creat and futimes match for jfs/xfs?


>Signed-off-by: Robin H. Johnson <robbat2@gentoo.org>
>
Hint: Cc it to the shmem.c maintainer, or it may get missed :)



Jan Engelhardt
-- 

Re: [PATCH] tmpfs time granularity fix for [acm]time moving backwards.

[Robin H. Johnson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1737 bytes --]

On Sun, Jun 11, 2006 at 12:12:41PM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> >Test output from a filesystem supporting sub-second timestamps (jfs,xfs,ramfs):
> >creat:   m=1149891452.928796249 c=1149891452.928796249 a=1149891452.928796249
> >futimes: m=1149891452.928796249 c=1149891452.928796249 a=1149891452.928796249
> >
> >Test output from the tmpfs filesystem with the patch below:
> >creat:   m=1149892086.382150894 c=1149892086.382150894 a=1149892075.473249075
> >futimes: m=1149892086.383150885 c=1149892086.383150885 a=1149892086.383150885
> >
> Is it normal that creat and futimes match for jfs/xfs?
My testcase just seemed to run nice and fast there, if I do some work in the
middle or sleep, the numbers will be different more, but otherwise I think it
implies that both operations are taking place during the same time instance (I
have HZ=1000 as you may be able to deduce by the 1ms differences in some of the
pairs).

I ran it a few more times on ramfs for good measure.
creat: m=1150025153.933532153 c=1150025153.933532153 a=1150025151.29558289
futimes: m=1150025153.933532153 c=1150025153.933532153 a=1150025153.933532153
...
creat: m=1150025156.860505810 c=1150025156.860505810 a=1150025153.933532153
futimes: m=1150025156.861505801 c=1150025156.861505801 a=1150025156.861505801
...
creat: m=1150025247.906686387 c=1150025247.906686387 a=1150025247.459690410
futimes: m=1150025247.907686378 c=1150025247.907686378 a=1150025247.907686378

> >Signed-off-by: Robin H. Johnson <robbat2@gentoo.org>
> Hint: Cc it to the shmem.c maintainer, or it may get missed :)
Will do, thanks.

-- 
Robin Hugh Johnson
E-Mail     : robbat2@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP   : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED  F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 241 bytes --]