[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87pljqyt10.fsf@igalia.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2025 10:48:43 +0000
From: Luis Henriques <luis@...lia.com>
To: 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
[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?
Cheers,
--
Luís
Powered by blists - more mailing lists