[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <17d76821691.c8e249b322113.2136207110726046721@mykernel.net>
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2021 22:59:36 +0800
From: Chengguang Xu <cgxu519@...ernel.net>
To: "Jan Kara" <jack@...e.cz>
Cc: "Amir Goldstein" <amir73il@...il.com>,
"Miklos Szeredi" <miklos@...redi.hu>,
"linux-fsdevel" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
"overlayfs" <linux-unionfs@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"ronyjin" <ronyjin@...cent.com>,
"charliecgxu" <charliecgxu@...cent.com>,
"Vivek Goyal" <vgoyal@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v5 06/10] ovl: implement overlayfs' ->write_inode
operation
---- 在 星期三, 2021-12-01 21:46:10 Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> 撰写 ----
> On Wed 01-12-21 09:19:17, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 8:31 AM Chengguang Xu <cgxu519@...ernel.net> wrote:
> > > So the final solution to handle all the concerns looks like accurately
> > > mark overlay inode diry on modification and re-mark dirty only for
> > > mmaped file in ->write_inode().
> > >
> > > Hi Miklos, Jan
> > >
> > > Will you agree with new proposal above?
> > >
> >
> > Maybe you can still pull off a simpler version by remarking dirty only
> > writably mmapped upper AND inode_is_open_for_write(upper)?
>
> Well, if inode is writeably mapped, it must be also open for write, doesn't
> it?
That's right.
> The VMA of the mapping will hold file open.
It's a bit tricky but currently ovl_mmap() will replace file to realfile in upper layer
and release overlayfs file. So overlayfs file itself will not have any relationship with
the VMA anymore after mmap().
Thanks,
Chengguang
> So remarking overlay inode
> dirty during writeback while inode_is_open_for_write(upper) looks like
> reasonably easy and presumably there won't be that many inodes open for
> writing for this to become big overhead?
>
> > If I am not mistaken, if you always mark overlay inode dirty on ovl_flush()
> > of FMODE_WRITE file, there is nothing that can make upper inode dirty
> > after last close (if upper is not mmaped), so one more inode sync should
> > be enough. No?
>
> But we still need to catch other dirtying events like timestamp updates,
> truncate(2) etc. to mark overlay inode dirty. Not sure how reliably that
> can be done...
>
> Honza
> --
> Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>
> SUSE Labs, CR
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists