[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <878qqhpy95.fsf@igalia.com>
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2025 15:31:34 +0000
From: Luis Henriques <luis@...lia.com>
To: Bernd Schubert <bernd@...ernd.com>
Cc: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Matt Harvey <mharvey@...ptrading.com>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] fuse: add new function to invalidate cache for all
inodes
Hi Bernd,
On Fri, Feb 07 2025, Bernd Schubert wrote:
> On 1/15/25 17:32, Luis Henriques wrote:
>> Currently userspace is able to notify the kernel to invalidate the cache
>> for an inode. This means that, if all the inodes in a filesystem need to
>> be invalidated, then userspace needs to iterate through all of them and do
>> this kernel notification separately.
>>
>> This patch adds a new option that allows userspace to invalidate all the
>> inodes with a single notification operation. In addition to invalidate all
>> the inodes, it also shrinks the superblock dcache.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Luis Henriques <luis@...lia.com>
>> ---
>> Just an additional note that this patch could eventually be simplified if
>> Dave Chinner patch to iterate through the superblock inodes[1] is merged.
>>
>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241002014017.3801899-3-david@fromorbit.com
>>
>> fs/fuse/inode.c | 53 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> include/uapi/linux/fuse.h | 3 +++
>> 2 files changed, 56 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/fuse/inode.c b/fs/fuse/inode.c
>> index 3ce4f4e81d09..1fd9a5f303da 100644
>> --- a/fs/fuse/inode.c
>> +++ b/fs/fuse/inode.c
>> @@ -546,6 +546,56 @@ struct inode *fuse_ilookup(struct fuse_conn *fc, u64 nodeid,
>> return NULL;
>> }
>>
>> +static int fuse_reverse_inval_all(struct fuse_conn *fc)
>> +{
>> + struct fuse_mount *fm;
>> + struct super_block *sb;
>> + struct inode *inode, *old_inode = NULL;
>> + struct fuse_inode *fi;
>> +
>> + inode = fuse_ilookup(fc, FUSE_ROOT_ID, NULL);
>> + if (!inode)
>> + return -ENOENT;
>> +
>> + fm = get_fuse_mount(inode);
>> + iput(inode);
>> + if (!fm)
>> + return -ENOENT;
>> + sb = fm->sb;
>> +
>> + spin_lock(&sb->s_inode_list_lock);
>> + list_for_each_entry(inode, &sb->s_inodes, i_sb_list) {
>> + spin_lock(&inode->i_lock);
>> + if ((inode->i_state & (I_FREEING|I_WILL_FREE|I_NEW)) ||
>> + !atomic_read(&inode->i_count)) {
>> + spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock);
>> + continue;
>> + }
>> +
>> + __iget(inode);
>> + spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock);
>> + spin_unlock(&sb->s_inode_list_lock);
>> + iput(old_inode);
>> +
>> + fi = get_fuse_inode(inode);
>> + spin_lock(&fi->lock);
>> + fi->attr_version = atomic64_inc_return(&fm->fc->attr_version);
>> + spin_unlock(&fi->lock);
>> + fuse_invalidate_attr(inode);
>> + forget_all_cached_acls(inode);
>> +
>> + old_inode = inode;
>> + cond_resched();
>> + spin_lock(&sb->s_inode_list_lock);
>> + }
>> + spin_unlock(&sb->s_inode_list_lock);
>> + iput(old_inode);
>> +
>> + shrink_dcache_sb(sb);
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>
> Just a suggestion, assuming Daves patch gets merged, maybe you coud move
> the actual action into into a sub function? Makes it better visible
> what is actually does and would then make it easier to move the iteration
> part to the generic approach?
Good point, I can created a helper function for that. It may eventually
be reused if Dave's patchset moves forward. Thanks for the suggestion.
Cheers,
--
Luís
> Alternatively, maybe updates Daves patch and add fuse on top of it? Dave?
>
>
> Thanks,
> Bernd
>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists