lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Dec]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH v5 06/10] ovl: implement overlayfs' ->write_inode operation
On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 8:31 AM Chengguang Xu <cgxu519@mykernel.net> wrote:
>
>
> ---- 在 星期三, 2021-12-01 10:37:15 Chengguang Xu <cgxu519@mykernel.net> 撰写 ----
> >
> > ---- 在 星期三, 2021-12-01 03:04:59 Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com> 撰写 ----
> > > > > I was thinking about this a bit more and I don't think I buy this
> > > > > explanation. What I rather think is happening is that real work for syncfs
> > > > > (writeback_inodes_sb() and sync_inodes_sb() calls) gets offloaded to a flush
> > > > > worker. E.g. writeback_inodes_sb() ends up calling
> > > > > __writeback_inodes_sb_nr() which does:
> > > > >
> > > > > bdi_split_work_to_wbs()
> > > > > wb_wait_for_completion()
> > > > >
> > > > > So you don't see the work done in the times accounted to your test
> > > > > program. But in practice the flush worker is indeed burning 1.3s worth of
> > > > > CPU to scan the 1 million inode list and do nothing.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > That makes sense. However, in real container use case, the upper dir is always empty,
> > > > so I don't think there is meaningful difference compare to accurately marking overlay
> > > > inode dirty.
> > > >
> > >
> > > It's true the that is a very common case, but...
> > >
> > > > I'm not very familiar with other use cases of overlayfs except container, should we consider
> > > > other use cases? Maybe we can also ignore the cpu burden because those use cases don't
> > > > have density deployment like container.
> > > >
> > >
> > > metacopy feature was developed for the use case of a container
> > > that chowns all the files in the lower image.
> > >
> > > In that case, which is now also quite common, all the overlay inodes are
> > > upper inodes.
> > >
> >
> > Regardless of metacopy or datacopy, that copy-up has already modified overlay inode
> > so initialy marking dirty to all overlay inodes which have upper inode will not be a serious
> > problem in this case too, right?
> >
> > I guess maybe you more concern about the re-mark dirtiness on above use case.
> >
> >
> >
> > > What about only re-mark overlay inode dirty if upper inode is dirty or is
> > > writeably mmapped.
> > > For other cases, it is easy to know when overlay inode becomes dirty?
> > > Didn't you already try this?
> > >
> >
> > Yes, I've tried that approach in previous version but as Miklos pointed out in the
> > feedback there are a few of racy conditions.
> >

Right..

>
> 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)?

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?

Thanks,
Amir.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-12-01 08:21    [W:0.213 / U:0.204 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site