[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <400ffcf9-9b98-4e94-81eb-3e33177ba334@bsbernd.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2025 16:18:30 +0100
From: Bernd Schubert <bernd@...ernd.com>
To: Luis Henriques <luis@...lia.com>, Bernd Schubert <bschubert@....com>
Cc: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2] fuse: add new function to invalidate cache for all
inodes
On 2/10/25 11:48, Luis Henriques wrote:
> [re-sending -- for some reason I did a simple 'reply', not a 'reply-all'.]
>
> On Mon, Feb 10 2025, Bernd Schubert wrote:
>
>> On 2/10/25 10:48, 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 sb dcache.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Luis Henriques <luis@...lia.com>
>>> ---
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> As suggested by Bernd, this patch v2 simply adds an helper function that
>>> will make it easier to replace most of it's code by a call to function
>>> super_iter_inodes() when Dave Chinner's patch[1] eventually gets merged.
>>>
>>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241002014017.3801899-3-david@fromorbit.com
>>>
>>> fs/fuse/inode.c | 59 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> include/uapi/linux/fuse.h | 3 ++
>>> 2 files changed, 62 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/fs/fuse/inode.c b/fs/fuse/inode.c
>>> index e9db2cb8c150..be51b53006d8 100644
>>> --- a/fs/fuse/inode.c
>>> +++ b/fs/fuse/inode.c
>>> @@ -547,6 +547,62 @@ struct inode *fuse_ilookup(struct fuse_conn *fc, u64 nodeid,
>>> return NULL;
>>> }
>>>
>>> +static void inval_single_inode(struct inode *inode, struct fuse_conn *fc)
>>> +{
>>> + struct fuse_inode *fi;
>>> +
>>> + fi = get_fuse_inode(inode);
>>> + spin_lock(&fi->lock);
>>> + fi->attr_version = atomic64_inc_return(&fc->attr_version);
>>> + spin_unlock(&fi->lock);
>>> + fuse_invalidate_attr(inode);
>>> + forget_all_cached_acls(inode);
>>
>>
>> Thank you, much easier to read.
>>
>> Could fuse_reverse_inval_inode() call into this?
>
> Yep, it could indeed. I'll do that in the next iteration, thanks!
>
>> What are the semantics
>> for invalidate_inode_pages2_range() in this case? Totally invalidate?
>> No page cache invalidation at all as right now? If so, why?
>
> So, if I change fuse_reverse_inval_inode() to use this help, it will still
> need to keep the call to invalidate_inode_pages2_range(). But in the new
> function fuse_reverse_inval_all(), I'm not doing it explicitly. Instead,
> that function calls into shrink_dcache_sb(). I *think* that by doing so
> the invalidation will eventually happen. Or am I wrong assuming that?
I think it will drop it, if the dentry cache is the last user/reference
of the inode. My issue is that it changes semantics a bit - without
FUSE_INVAL_ALL_INODES the page cache is invalidated based on the given
offset. Obviously we cannot give the offset for all inodes, but we
at least document the different semantics in a comment above
FUSE_INVAL_ALL_INODES? Sorry, should have asked earlier for it, just
busy with multiple things in parallel...
Thanks,
Bernd
Powered by blists - more mailing lists