- inotify
- a powerful yet simple file change notification system
+ 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 sys calls
+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
+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>
Watches on a directory will return events on any files inside of the directory.
-Adding a watch is simple,
+Adding a watch is simple:
int wd = inotify_add_watch (fd, path, mask);
-You can add a large number of files via something like
-
- for each file to watch {
- int wd = inotify_add_watch (fd, file, 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 the INOTIFY_IGNORE ioctl, for example
+An existing watch is removed via
- inotify_rm_watch (fd, wd);
+ int ret = inotify_rm_watch (fd, wd);
Events are provided in the form of an inotify_event structure that is read(2)
-from a inotify instance fd. 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.
+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);
-Will return as many events as are available and fit in 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.
+Each inotify instance fd is also select()- and poll()-able.
-You can find the size of the current event queue via the FIONREAD ioctl.
+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) Internal Kernel Implementation
+(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);
+
-Each open inotify instance is associated with an inotify_device structure.
+(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.
-(iii) Rationale
+(iv) Rationale
Q: What is the design decision behind not tying the watch to the open fd of
the watched object?
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.
+ unmounted. Watching a file should not require that it be open.
-Q: What is the design decision behind using an-fd-per-device as opposed to
+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,
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
+ 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.
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?
- - You'd have to manage the fd's, as an example: Call close() when you
- received a delete event.
-
- No way to get out of band data.
- 1024 is still too low. ;-)
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.
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
- features and it means our user interface requirements.
-
- Additionally, it _is_ possible to more than one instance and
- juggle more than one queue and thus more than one associated fd.
+ 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.
projects / linux-2.6 / commitdiff