From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D338C33C9E for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2020 00:44:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A479520720 for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2020 00:44:04 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="wVjR5/sP" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org A479520720 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 22B558E0005; Wed, 8 Jan 2020 19:44:04 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 201A18E0001; Wed, 8 Jan 2020 19:44:04 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 118568E0005; Wed, 8 Jan 2020 19:44:04 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0111.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.111]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2C0E8E0001 for ; Wed, 8 Jan 2020 19:44:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin18.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay05.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 9C4CE181AEF00 for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2020 00:44:03 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 76356248766.18.body46_5d996d4ee020a X-HE-Tag: body46_5d996d4ee020a X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 4033 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by imf33.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2020 00:44:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tleilax.poochiereds.net (68-20-15-154.lightspeed.rlghnc.sbcglobal.net [68.20.15.154]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C5ABD2070E; Thu, 9 Jan 2020 00:44:00 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1578530642; bh=Go188rL5tikNt03I4uWv26oj+FUof0Vk+S7a6HlvT1A=; h=Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=wVjR5/sPmfzWsNjUYs7iAFkDuAiMFnOpPCjdP+oU0s+4tHE0RLgbXYKiXuSJulplY WZVBvVyNaV7D1gkAtlMQFENto0ov9x31m3PyRs1uW7fKs78RbYeEqMnDd0yifwYvyL QJQ799I/TfvKrDuKHFPYFjkL73uGZt3h28MFnhyU= Message-ID: <064b5f5318fd433f03242ed234fe7c370899e224.camel@kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] tmpfs: Support 64-bit inums per-sb From: Jeff Layton To: Hugh Dickins , Chris Mason Cc: Dave Chinner , Amir Goldstein , Chris Down , Linux MM , Andrew Morton , Al Viro , Matthew Wilcox , Johannes Weiner , Tejun Heo , linux-fsdevel , linux-kernel , Kernel Team Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2020 19:43:52 -0500 In-Reply-To: References: <20200107001039.GM23195@dread.disaster.area> <20200107001643.GA485121@chrisdown.name> <20200107003944.GN23195@dread.disaster.area> <20200107210715.GQ23195@dread.disaster.area> <4E9DF932-C46C-4331-B88D-6928D63B8267@fb.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" User-Agent: Evolution 3.34.2 (3.34.2-1.fc31) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Wed, 2020-01-08 at 03:24 -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote: > On Tue, 7 Jan 2020, Chris Mason wrote: > > On 7 Jan 2020, at 16:07, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > > > IOWs, there are *lots* of 64bit inode numbers out there on XFS > > > filesystems.... > > > > It's less likely in btrfs but +1 to all of Dave's comments. I'm happy > > to run a scan on machines in the fleet and see how many have 64 bit > > inodes (either buttery or x-y), but it's going to be a lot. > > Dave, Amir, Chris, many thanks for the info you've filled in - > and absolutely no need to run any scan on your fleet for this, > I think we can be confident that even if fb had some 15-year-old tool > in use on its fleet of 2GB-file filesystems, it would not be the one > to insist on a kernel revert of 64-bit tmpfs inos. > > The picture looks clear now: while ChrisD does need to hold on to his > config option and inode32/inode64 mount option patch, it is much better > left out of the kernel until (very unlikely) proved necessary. This approach seems like the best course to me. FWIW, at the time we capped this at 32-bits (2007), 64-bit machines were really just becoming widely available, and it was quite common to run 32-bit, non-LFS apps on a 64-bit kernel. Users were hitting spurious EOVERFLOW errors all over the place so this seemed like the best way to address it. The world has changed a lot since then though, and one would hope that almost everything these days is compiled with FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64. Fingers crossed! -- Jeff Layton