Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210923130814.140814-1-cgxu519@mykernel.net> <20210923130814.140814-8-cgxu519@mykernel.net>
In-Reply-To: <20210923130814.140814-8-cgxu519@mykernel.net>
From:   Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>
Date:   Thu, 7 Oct 2021 13:09:46 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJfpegtLi1PsfpkohJ-8kTHVazf7cZiX96OSBMn7Q39PY_PXaw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v5 07/10] ovl: cache dirty overlayfs' inode
To:     Chengguang Xu <cgxu519@mykernel.net>
Cc:     Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        overlayfs <linux-unionfs@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 23 Sept 2021 at 15:08, Chengguang Xu <cgxu519@mykernel.net> wrote:
>
> Now drop overlayfs' inode will sync dirty data,
> so we change to only drop clean inode.
>
> The purpose of doing this is to keep compatible
> behavior with before because without this change
> dropping overlayfs inode will not trigger syncing
> of underlying dirty inode.
>
> Signed-off-by: Chengguang Xu <cgxu519@mykernel.net>
> ---
>  fs/overlayfs/super.c | 16 +++++++++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/overlayfs/super.c b/fs/overlayfs/super.c
> index cddae3ca2fa5..bf4000eb9be8 100644
> --- a/fs/overlayfs/super.c
> +++ b/fs/overlayfs/super.c
> @@ -441,11 +441,25 @@ static int ovl_write_inode(struct inode *inode,
>         return ret;
>  }
>
> +/*
> + * In iput_final(), clean inode will drop directly and dirty inode will
> + * keep in the cache until write back to sync dirty data then add to lru
> + * list to wait reclaim.
> + */
> +static int ovl_drop_inode(struct inode *inode)
> +{
> +       struct inode *upper = ovl_inode_upper(inode);
> +
> +       if (!upper || !(inode->i_state & I_DIRTY_ALL))

Could we check upper dirtyness here? That would give a more precise result.

Alternatively don't set .drop_inode (i.e. use generic_drop_inode())
and set I_DONTCACHE on overlay inodes.  That would cause the upper
inode to be always written back before eviction.

The latter would result in simpler logic, and I think performance-wise
it wouldn't matter.   But I may be missing something.

Thanks,
Miklos