| inotify |
| a powerful yet simple file change notification system |
| |
| |
| |
| Document started 15 Mar 2005 by Robert Love <rml@novell.com> |
| |
| |
| (i) User Interface |
| |
| Inotify is controlled by a set of three system calls and normal file I/O on a |
| returned file descriptor. |
| |
| First step in using inotify is to initialise an inotify instance: |
| |
| int fd = inotify_init (); |
| |
| Each instance is associated with a unique, ordered queue. |
| |
| Change events are managed by "watches". A watch is an (object,mask) pair where |
| the object is a file or directory and the mask is a bit mask of one or more |
| inotify events that the application wishes to receive. See <linux/inotify.h> |
| for valid events. A watch is referenced by a watch descriptor, or wd. |
| |
| Watches are added via a path to the file. |
| |
| Watches on a directory will return events on any files inside of the directory. |
| |
| Adding a watch is simple: |
| |
| int wd = inotify_add_watch (fd, path, mask); |
| |
| Where "fd" is the return value from inotify_init(), path is the path to the |
| object to watch, and mask is the watch mask (see <linux/inotify.h>). |
| |
| You can update an existing watch in the same manner, by passing in a new mask. |
| |
| An existing watch is removed via |
| |
| int ret = inotify_rm_watch (fd, wd); |
| |
| Events are provided in the form of an inotify_event structure that is read(2) |
| from a given inotify instance. The filename is of dynamic length and follows |
| the struct. It is of size len. The filename is padded with null bytes to |
| ensure proper alignment. This padding is reflected in len. |
| |
| You can slurp multiple events by passing a large buffer, for example |
| |
| size_t len = read (fd, buf, BUF_LEN); |
| |
| Where "buf" is a pointer to an array of "inotify_event" structures at least |
| BUF_LEN bytes in size. The above example will return as many events as are |
| available and fit in BUF_LEN. |
| |
| Each inotify instance fd is also select()- and poll()-able. |
| |
| You can find the size of the current event queue via the standard FIONREAD |
| ioctl on the fd returned by inotify_init(). |
| |
| All watches are destroyed and cleaned up on close. |
| |
| |
| (ii) |
| |
| Prototypes: |
| |
| int inotify_init (void); |
| int inotify_add_watch (int fd, const char *path, __u32 mask); |
| int inotify_rm_watch (int fd, __u32 mask); |
| |
| |
| (iii) Internal Kernel Implementation |
| |
| Each inotify instance is associated with an inotify_device structure. |
| |
| Each watch is associated with an inotify_watch structure. Watches are chained |
| off of each associated device and each associated inode. |
| |
| See fs/inotify.c for the locking and lifetime rules. |
| |
| |
| (iv) Rationale |
| |
| Q: What is the design decision behind not tying the watch to the open fd of |
| the watched object? |
| |
| A: Watches are associated with an open inotify device, not an open file. |
| This solves the primary problem with dnotify: keeping the file open pins |
| the file and thus, worse, pins the mount. Dnotify is therefore infeasible |
| for use on a desktop system with removable media as the media cannot be |
| unmounted. Watching a file should not require that it be open. |
| |
| Q: What is the design decision behind using an-fd-per-instance as opposed to |
| an fd-per-watch? |
| |
| A: An fd-per-watch quickly consumes more file descriptors than are allowed, |
| more fd's than are feasible to manage, and more fd's than are optimally |
| select()-able. Yes, root can bump the per-process fd limit and yes, users |
| can use epoll, but requiring both is a silly and extraneous requirement. |
| A watch consumes less memory than an open file, separating the number |
| spaces is thus sensible. The current design is what user-space developers |
| want: Users initialize inotify, once, and add n watches, requiring but one |
| fd and no twiddling with fd limits. Initializing an inotify instance two |
| thousand times is silly. If we can implement user-space's preferences |
| cleanly--and we can, the idr layer makes stuff like this trivial--then we |
| should. |
| |
| There are other good arguments. With a single fd, there is a single |
| item to block on, which is mapped to a single queue of events. The single |
| fd returns all watch events and also any potential out-of-band data. If |
| every fd was a separate watch, |
| |
| - There would be no way to get event ordering. Events on file foo and |
| file bar would pop poll() on both fd's, but there would be no way to tell |
| which happened first. A single queue trivially gives you ordering. Such |
| ordering is crucial to existing applications such as Beagle. Imagine |
| "mv a b ; mv b a" events without ordering. |
| |
| - We'd have to maintain n fd's and n internal queues with state, |
| versus just one. It is a lot messier in the kernel. A single, linear |
| queue is the data structure that makes sense. |
| |
| - User-space developers prefer the current API. The Beagle guys, for |
| example, love it. Trust me, I asked. It is not a surprise: Who'd want |
| to manage and block on 1000 fd's via select? |
| |
| - No way to get out of band data. |
| |
| - 1024 is still too low. ;-) |
| |
| When you talk about designing a file change notification system that |
| scales to 1000s of directories, juggling 1000s of fd's just does not seem |
| the right interface. It is too heavy. |
| |
| Additionally, it _is_ possible to more than one instance and |
| juggle more than one queue and thus more than one associated fd. There |
| need not be a one-fd-per-process mapping; it is one-fd-per-queue and a |
| process can easily want more than one queue. |
| |
| Q: Why the system call approach? |
| |
| A: The poor user-space interface is the second biggest problem with dnotify. |
| Signals are a terrible, terrible interface for file notification. Or for |
| anything, for that matter. The ideal solution, from all perspectives, is a |
| file descriptor-based one that allows basic file I/O and poll/select. |
| Obtaining the fd and managing the watches could have been done either via a |
| device file or a family of new system calls. We decided to implement a |
| family of system calls because that is the preffered approach for new kernel |
| interfaces. The only real difference was whether we wanted to use open(2) |
| and ioctl(2) or a couple of new system calls. System calls beat ioctls. |
| |