[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4176733.1621987227@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 26 May 2021 01:00:27 +0100
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
"Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>, Chris Mason <clm@...com>,
Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
xfs <linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-cachefs@...hat.com,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
NeilBrown <neilb@...e.com>
Subject: Re: How capacious and well-indexed are ext4, xfs and btrfs directories?
Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca> wrote:
> > Any thoughts on how that might scale? vfs_tmpfile() doesn't appear to
> > require the directory inode lock. I presume the directory is required for
> > security purposes in addition to being a way to specify the target
> > filesystem.
>
> I don't see how that would help much?
When it comes to dealing with a file I don't have cached, I can't probe the
cache file to find out whether it has data that I can read until I've opened
it (or found out it doesn't exist). When it comes to writing to a new cache
file, I can't start writing until the file is created and opened - but this
will potentially hold up close, data sync and writes that conflict (and have
to implicitly sync). If I can use vfs_tmpfile() to defer synchronous
directory accesses, that could be useful.
As mentioned, creating a link to a temporary cache file (ie. modifying the
directory) could be deferred to a background thread whilst allowing file I/O
to progress to the tmpfile.
David
Powered by blists - more mailing lists