Robert Love | 6f97933 | 2005-07-15 03:56:33 -0700 | [diff] [blame] | 1 | inotify |
| 2 | a powerful yet simple file change notification system |
Robert Love | 0eeca28 | 2005-07-12 17:06:03 -0400 | [diff] [blame] | 3 | |
| 4 | |
| 5 | |
| 6 | Document started 15 Mar 2005 by Robert Love <rml@novell.com> |
| 7 | |
Robert Love | 6f97933 | 2005-07-15 03:56:33 -0700 | [diff] [blame] | 8 | |
Robert Love | 0eeca28 | 2005-07-12 17:06:03 -0400 | [diff] [blame] | 9 | (i) User Interface |
| 10 | |
Robert Love | 6f97933 | 2005-07-15 03:56:33 -0700 | [diff] [blame] | 11 | Inotify is controlled by a set of three system calls and normal file I/O on a |
| 12 | returned file descriptor. |
Robert Love | 0eeca28 | 2005-07-12 17:06:03 -0400 | [diff] [blame] | 13 | |
Robert Love | 6f97933 | 2005-07-15 03:56:33 -0700 | [diff] [blame] | 14 | First step in using inotify is to initialise an inotify instance: |
Robert Love | 0eeca28 | 2005-07-12 17:06:03 -0400 | [diff] [blame] | 15 | |
| 16 | int fd = inotify_init (); |
| 17 | |
Robert Love | 6f97933 | 2005-07-15 03:56:33 -0700 | [diff] [blame] | 18 | Each instance is associated with a unique, ordered queue. |
| 19 | |
Robert Love | 0eeca28 | 2005-07-12 17:06:03 -0400 | [diff] [blame] | 20 | Change events are managed by "watches". A watch is an (object,mask) pair where |
| 21 | the object is a file or directory and the mask is a bit mask of one or more |
| 22 | inotify events that the application wishes to receive. See <linux/inotify.h> |
| 23 | for valid events. A watch is referenced by a watch descriptor, or wd. |
| 24 | |
| 25 | Watches are added via a path to the file. |
| 26 | |
| 27 | Watches on a directory will return events on any files inside of the directory. |
| 28 | |
Robert Love | 6f97933 | 2005-07-15 03:56:33 -0700 | [diff] [blame] | 29 | Adding a watch is simple: |
Robert Love | 0eeca28 | 2005-07-12 17:06:03 -0400 | [diff] [blame] | 30 | |
| 31 | int wd = inotify_add_watch (fd, path, mask); |
| 32 | |
Robert Love | 6f97933 | 2005-07-15 03:56:33 -0700 | [diff] [blame] | 33 | Where "fd" is the return value from inotify_init(), path is the path to the |
| 34 | object to watch, and mask is the watch mask (see <linux/inotify.h>). |
Robert Love | 0eeca28 | 2005-07-12 17:06:03 -0400 | [diff] [blame] | 35 | |
| 36 | You can update an existing watch in the same manner, by passing in a new mask. |
| 37 | |
Robert Love | 6f97933 | 2005-07-15 03:56:33 -0700 | [diff] [blame] | 38 | An existing watch is removed via |
Robert Love | 0eeca28 | 2005-07-12 17:06:03 -0400 | [diff] [blame] | 39 | |
Robert Love | 6f97933 | 2005-07-15 03:56:33 -0700 | [diff] [blame] | 40 | int ret = inotify_rm_watch (fd, wd); |
Robert Love | 0eeca28 | 2005-07-12 17:06:03 -0400 | [diff] [blame] | 41 | |
| 42 | Events are provided in the form of an inotify_event structure that is read(2) |
Robert Love | 6f97933 | 2005-07-15 03:56:33 -0700 | [diff] [blame] | 43 | from a given inotify instance. The filename is of dynamic length and follows |
| 44 | the struct. It is of size len. The filename is padded with null bytes to |
| 45 | ensure proper alignment. This padding is reflected in len. |
Robert Love | 0eeca28 | 2005-07-12 17:06:03 -0400 | [diff] [blame] | 46 | |
| 47 | You can slurp multiple events by passing a large buffer, for example |
| 48 | |
| 49 | size_t len = read (fd, buf, BUF_LEN); |
| 50 | |
Robert Love | 6f97933 | 2005-07-15 03:56:33 -0700 | [diff] [blame] | 51 | Where "buf" is a pointer to an array of "inotify_event" structures at least |
| 52 | BUF_LEN bytes in size. The above example will return as many events as are |
| 53 | available and fit in BUF_LEN. |
Robert Love | 0eeca28 | 2005-07-12 17:06:03 -0400 | [diff] [blame] | 54 | |
Robert Love | 6f97933 | 2005-07-15 03:56:33 -0700 | [diff] [blame] | 55 | Each inotify instance fd is also select()- and poll()-able. |
Robert Love | 0eeca28 | 2005-07-12 17:06:03 -0400 | [diff] [blame] | 56 | |
Robert Love | 6f97933 | 2005-07-15 03:56:33 -0700 | [diff] [blame] | 57 | You can find the size of the current event queue via the standard FIONREAD |
| 58 | ioctl on the fd returned by inotify_init(). |
Robert Love | 0eeca28 | 2005-07-12 17:06:03 -0400 | [diff] [blame] | 59 | |
| 60 | All watches are destroyed and cleaned up on close. |
| 61 | |
| 62 | |
Robert Love | 6f97933 | 2005-07-15 03:56:33 -0700 | [diff] [blame] | 63 | (ii) |
Robert Love | 0eeca28 | 2005-07-12 17:06:03 -0400 | [diff] [blame] | 64 | |
Robert Love | 6f97933 | 2005-07-15 03:56:33 -0700 | [diff] [blame] | 65 | Prototypes: |
| 66 | |
| 67 | int inotify_init (void); |
| 68 | int inotify_add_watch (int fd, const char *path, __u32 mask); |
| 69 | int inotify_rm_watch (int fd, __u32 mask); |
| 70 | |
| 71 | |
| 72 | (iii) Internal Kernel Implementation |
| 73 | |
| 74 | Each inotify instance is associated with an inotify_device structure. |
Robert Love | 0eeca28 | 2005-07-12 17:06:03 -0400 | [diff] [blame] | 75 | |
| 76 | Each watch is associated with an inotify_watch structure. Watches are chained |
| 77 | off of each associated device and each associated inode. |
| 78 | |
| 79 | See fs/inotify.c for the locking and lifetime rules. |
| 80 | |
| 81 | |
Robert Love | 6f97933 | 2005-07-15 03:56:33 -0700 | [diff] [blame] | 82 | (iv) Rationale |
Robert Love | 0eeca28 | 2005-07-12 17:06:03 -0400 | [diff] [blame] | 83 | |
| 84 | Q: What is the design decision behind not tying the watch to the open fd of |
| 85 | the watched object? |
| 86 | |
| 87 | A: Watches are associated with an open inotify device, not an open file. |
| 88 | This solves the primary problem with dnotify: keeping the file open pins |
| 89 | the file and thus, worse, pins the mount. Dnotify is therefore infeasible |
| 90 | for use on a desktop system with removable media as the media cannot be |
Robert Love | 6f97933 | 2005-07-15 03:56:33 -0700 | [diff] [blame] | 91 | unmounted. Watching a file should not require that it be open. |
Robert Love | 0eeca28 | 2005-07-12 17:06:03 -0400 | [diff] [blame] | 92 | |
Robert Love | 6f97933 | 2005-07-15 03:56:33 -0700 | [diff] [blame] | 93 | Q: What is the design decision behind using an-fd-per-instance as opposed to |
Robert Love | 0eeca28 | 2005-07-12 17:06:03 -0400 | [diff] [blame] | 94 | an fd-per-watch? |
| 95 | |
| 96 | A: An fd-per-watch quickly consumes more file descriptors than are allowed, |
| 97 | more fd's than are feasible to manage, and more fd's than are optimally |
| 98 | select()-able. Yes, root can bump the per-process fd limit and yes, users |
| 99 | can use epoll, but requiring both is a silly and extraneous requirement. |
| 100 | A watch consumes less memory than an open file, separating the number |
| 101 | spaces is thus sensible. The current design is what user-space developers |
Robert Love | 6f97933 | 2005-07-15 03:56:33 -0700 | [diff] [blame] | 102 | want: Users initialize inotify, once, and add n watches, requiring but one |
| 103 | fd and no twiddling with fd limits. Initializing an inotify instance two |
Robert Love | 0eeca28 | 2005-07-12 17:06:03 -0400 | [diff] [blame] | 104 | thousand times is silly. If we can implement user-space's preferences |
| 105 | cleanly--and we can, the idr layer makes stuff like this trivial--then we |
| 106 | should. |
| 107 | |
| 108 | There are other good arguments. With a single fd, there is a single |
| 109 | item to block on, which is mapped to a single queue of events. The single |
| 110 | fd returns all watch events and also any potential out-of-band data. If |
| 111 | every fd was a separate watch, |
| 112 | |
| 113 | - There would be no way to get event ordering. Events on file foo and |
| 114 | file bar would pop poll() on both fd's, but there would be no way to tell |
| 115 | which happened first. A single queue trivially gives you ordering. Such |
| 116 | ordering is crucial to existing applications such as Beagle. Imagine |
| 117 | "mv a b ; mv b a" events without ordering. |
| 118 | |
| 119 | - We'd have to maintain n fd's and n internal queues with state, |
| 120 | versus just one. It is a lot messier in the kernel. A single, linear |
| 121 | queue is the data structure that makes sense. |
| 122 | |
| 123 | - User-space developers prefer the current API. The Beagle guys, for |
| 124 | example, love it. Trust me, I asked. It is not a surprise: Who'd want |
| 125 | to manage and block on 1000 fd's via select? |
| 126 | |
Robert Love | 0eeca28 | 2005-07-12 17:06:03 -0400 | [diff] [blame] | 127 | - No way to get out of band data. |
| 128 | |
| 129 | - 1024 is still too low. ;-) |
| 130 | |
| 131 | When you talk about designing a file change notification system that |
| 132 | scales to 1000s of directories, juggling 1000s of fd's just does not seem |
| 133 | the right interface. It is too heavy. |
| 134 | |
Robert Love | 6f97933 | 2005-07-15 03:56:33 -0700 | [diff] [blame] | 135 | Additionally, it _is_ possible to more than one instance and |
| 136 | juggle more than one queue and thus more than one associated fd. There |
| 137 | need not be a one-fd-per-process mapping; it is one-fd-per-queue and a |
| 138 | process can easily want more than one queue. |
| 139 | |
Robert Love | 0eeca28 | 2005-07-12 17:06:03 -0400 | [diff] [blame] | 140 | Q: Why the system call approach? |
| 141 | |
| 142 | A: The poor user-space interface is the second biggest problem with dnotify. |
| 143 | Signals are a terrible, terrible interface for file notification. Or for |
| 144 | anything, for that matter. The ideal solution, from all perspectives, is a |
| 145 | file descriptor-based one that allows basic file I/O and poll/select. |
| 146 | Obtaining the fd and managing the watches could have been done either via a |
| 147 | device file or a family of new system calls. We decided to implement a |
| 148 | family of system calls because that is the preffered approach for new kernel |
Robert Love | 6f97933 | 2005-07-15 03:56:33 -0700 | [diff] [blame] | 149 | interfaces. The only real difference was whether we wanted to use open(2) |
| 150 | and ioctl(2) or a couple of new system calls. System calls beat ioctls. |
Robert Love | 0eeca28 | 2005-07-12 17:06:03 -0400 | [diff] [blame] | 151 | |