Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Message-ID: <2b03788f9d71d9d972cbe908e0f0fb0e37672719.camel@themaw.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/11] fs/dcache: Limit # of negative dentries
From:   Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net>
To:     Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc:     Andreas Dilger <adilger@dilger.ca>,
        Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Iurii Zaikin <yzaikin@google.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@kernel.org>,
        Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>,
        Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
        Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>
Date:   Fri, 28 Feb 2020 12:52:52 +0800
In-Reply-To: <20200228042208.GI23230@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
References: <20200226161404.14136-1-longman@redhat.com>
         <20200226162954.GC24185@bombadil.infradead.org>
         <2EDB6FFC-C649-4C80-999B-945678F5CE87@dilger.ca>
         <9d7b76c32d09492137a253e692624856388693db.camel@themaw.net>
         <20200228033412.GD29971@bombadil.infradead.org>
         <20200228042208.GI23230@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.32.5 (3.32.5-1.fc30) 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 2020-02-28 at 04:22 +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 07:34:12PM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 05:55:43PM +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
> > > Not all file systems even produce negative hashed dentries.
> > > 
> > > The most beneficial use of them is to improve performance of
> > > rapid
> > > fire lookups for non-existent names. Longer lived negative hashed
> > > dentries don't give much benefit at all unless they suddenly have
> > > lots of hits and that would cost a single allocation on the first
> > > lookup if the dentry ttl expired and the dentry discarded.
> > > 
> > > A ttl (say jiffies) set at appropriate times could be a better
> > > choice all round, no sysctl values at all.
> > 
> > The canonical argument in favour of negative dentries is to improve
> > application startup time as every application searches the library
> > path
> > for the same libraries.  Only they don't do that any more:
> 
> 	Tell that to scripts that keep looking through $PATH for
> binaries each time they are run.  Tell that to cc(1) looking through
> include path, etc.
> 
> 	Ian, autofs is deeply pathological in that respect; that's OK,
> since it has very unusual needs, but please don't use it as a model
> for anything else - its needs *are* unusual.

Ok, but my thoughts aren't based on autofs behaviours.

But it sounds like you don't believe this is a sensible suggestion
and you would know best so ...

Ian