lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Jun]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v5 0/3] FUSE: Implement atomic lookup + open/create
Date
Hi Miklos,

On 5/19/22 11:39, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> On Tue, 17 May 2022 at 12:08, Dharmendra Singh <dharamhans87@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> In FUSE, as of now, uncached lookups are expensive over the wire.
>> E.g additional latencies and stressing (meta data) servers from
>> thousands of clients. These lookup calls possibly can be avoided
>> in some cases. Incoming three patches address this issue.
>>
>>
>> Fist patch handles the case where we are creating a file with O_CREAT.
>> Before we go for file creation, we do a lookup on the file which is most
>> likely non-existent. After this lookup is done, we again go into libfuse
>> to create file. Such lookups where file is most likely non-existent, can
>> be avoided.
>
> I'd really like to see a bit wider picture...
>
> We have several cases, first of all let's look at plain O_CREAT
> without O_EXCL (assume that there were no changes since the last
> lookup for simplicity):
>
> [not cached, negative]
> ->atomic_open()
> LOOKUP
> CREATE
>

[...]

> [not cached]
> ->atomic_open()
> OPEN_ATOMIC

new patch version is eventually going through xfstests (and it finds
some issues), but I have a question about wording here. Why
"OPEN_ATOMIC" and not "ATOMIC_OPEN". Based on your comment @Dharmendra
renamed all functions and this fuse op "open atomic" instead of "atomic
open" - for my non native English this sounds rather weird. At best it
should be "open atomically"?


Thanks,
Bernd

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-06-01 13:52    [W:0.275 / U:0.020 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site