Re: [PATCH 13/17] watch_queue: Implement mount topology and attribute change notifications [ver #5]

On Tue, 2020-08-04 at 15:19 +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:

On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 1:39 PM Ian Kent [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Mon, 2020-08-03 at 11:29 +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 12:48 PM David Howells <
dhowells@redhat.com>
wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

                __u32   topology_changes;
                __u32   attr_changes;
                __u32   aux_topology_changes;

Being 32bit this introduces wraparound effects.  Is that
really
worth it?

You'd have to make 2 billion changes without whoever's
monitoring
getting a
chance to update their counters.  But maybe it's not worth it
putting them
here.  If you'd prefer, I can make the counters all 64-bit and
just
retrieve
them with fsinfo().

Yes, I think that would be preferable.

I think this is the source of the recommendation for removing the
change counters from the notification message, correct?

While it looks like I may not need those counters for systemd
message
buffer overflow handling myself I think removing them from the
notification message isn't a sensible thing to do.

If you need to detect missing messages, perhaps due to message
buffer
overflow, then you need change counters that are relevant to the
notification message itself. That's so the next time you get a
message
for that object you can be sure that change counter comparisons you
you make relate to object notifications you have processed.

I don't quite get it.  Change notification is just that: a
notification.   You need to know what object that notification
relates
to, to be able to retrieve the up to date attributes of said object.

What happens if you get a change counter N in the notification
message, then get a change counter N + 1 in the attribute retrieval?
You know that another change happened, and you haven't yet processed
the notification yet.  So when the notification with N + 1 comes in,
you can optimize away the attribute retrieve.

Nice optimization, but it's optimizing a race condition, and I don't
think that's warranted.  I don't see any other use for the change
counter in the notification message.

quoted

Yes, I know it isn't quite that simple, but tallying up what you
have
processed in the current batch of messages (or in multiple batches
of
messages if more than one read has been possible) to perform the
check
is a user space responsibility. And it simply can't be done if the
counters consistency is in question which it would be if you need
to
perform another system call to get it.

It's way more useful to have these in the notification than
obtainable
via fsinfo() IMHO.

What is it useful for?

Only to verify that you have seen all the notifications.

If you have to grab that info with a separate call then the count
isn't necessarily consistent because other notifications can occur
while you grab it.

My per-object rant isn't quite right, what's needed is a consistent
way to verify you have seen everything you were supposed to.

I think your point is that if you grab the info in another call and
it doesn't match you need to refresh and that's fine but I think it's
better to be able to verify you have got everything that was sent as
you go and avoid the need for the refresh more often.

If the notification itself would contain the list of updated
attributes and their new values, then yes, this would make sense.  If
the notification just tells us that the object was modified, but not
the modifications themselves, then I don't see how the change counter
in itself could add any information (other than optimizing the race
condition above).

Thanks,
Miklos

Thanks,

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

        n->watch.info & NOTIFY_MOUNT_IS_RECURSIVE if true
indicates that
        the notifcation was generated by an event (eg.
SETATTR)
that was
        applied recursively.  The notification is only
generated for the
        object that initially triggered it.

Unused in this patchset.  Please don't add things to the API
which are not
used.

Christian Brauner has patches for mount_setattr() that will
need to
use this.

Fine, then that patch can add the flag.

Thanks,
Miklos