Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46641C433EF for ; Wed, 1 Dec 2021 02:38:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1346213AbhLAClT (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Nov 2021 21:41:19 -0500 Received: from sender2-pp-o92.zoho.com.cn ([163.53.93.251]:25310 "EHLO sender2-pp-o92.zoho.com.cn" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S241261AbhLAClR (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Nov 2021 21:41:17 -0500 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1638326237; cv=none; d=zoho.com.cn; s=zohoarc; b=HkED0vDVF5r5eNU/RMzPpFjgb+jLyK2S1yeTFcyZ39gw3hYBWKEXZ83D+rPND6be12eDjsDoQVcscYDnj0F62xWUOlYdzl8zWrPdNHDvZlVK9PZJ626upUvSi7C8C9WAGQfs9D2/bcr1y95QgZSu4SP3opizlw2A9+TvxjtJVwo= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=zoho.com.cn; s=zohoarc; t=1638326237; h=Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Date:From:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Reply-To:References:Subject:To; bh=7jJKWu1DhTE7fcd9TsgzGaE4zZchWQhQsli4rX59K3A=; b=IarhBYNzodBkcf75v9dxmbm8OaQksaem/6A0TKLYnFjGNgqn32lqdrOSyrqBmKTjNZKExTUbGklpk1d9jWzvCSaaVuZA3O3w39RPxBcLH48ryVF2I+OQQ/tyaqX9DScemUA01ncAKPDYOgeF8rfeNgOhmUTqVnbCSYfRSUP726U= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.zoho.com.cn; dkim=pass header.i=mykernel.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cgxu519@mykernel.net; dmarc=pass header.from= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1638326237; s=zohomail; d=mykernel.net; i=cgxu519@mykernel.net; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; bh=7jJKWu1DhTE7fcd9TsgzGaE4zZchWQhQsli4rX59K3A=; b=cFER/EAahkCmUSK2sjla2BeePezgHuw0YTrjd+nj6bpXuOVrDlcdqhe4jtJz+yBR uXPDJs5c99jKsltJHI0HqzUyV7BdHJBVagiWjsJpwoYScbjhvlptHVd50+OYUDdmwNs /7uoCRXKK10jkYiXECG/XBc8dKfAq4Oz2yzzsBmU= Received: from mail.baihui.com by mx.zoho.com.cn with SMTP id 1638326235185468.52864776275817; Wed, 1 Dec 2021 10:37:15 +0800 (CST) Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2021 10:37:15 +0800 From: Chengguang Xu Reply-To: cgxu519@mykernel.net To: "Amir Goldstein" Cc: "Jan Kara" , "Miklos Szeredi" , "linux-fsdevel" , "overlayfs" , "linux-kernel" , "ronyjin" , "charliecgxu" , "Vivek Goyal" Message-ID: <17d73da701b.e571c37220081.6904057835107693340@mykernel.net> In-Reply-To: References: <17c5adfe5ea.12f1be94625921.4478415437452327206@mykernel.net> <17d268ba3ce.1199800543649.1713755891767595962@mykernel.net> <17d2c858d76.d8a27d876510.8802992623030721788@mykernel.net> <17d31bf3d62.1119ad4be10313.6832593367889908304@mykernel.net> <20211118112315.GD13047@quack2.suse.cz> <17d32ecf46e.124314f8f672.8832559275193368959@mykernel.net> <20211118164349.GB8267@quack2.suse.cz> <17d36d37022.1227b6f102736.1047689367927335302@mykernel.net> <20211130112206.GE7174@quack2.suse.cz> <17d719b79f9.d89bf95117881.5882353172682156775@mykernel.net> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v5 06/10] ovl: implement overlayfs' ->write_inode operation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Importance: Medium User-Agent: ZohoCN Mail X-Mailer: ZohoCN Mail Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org ---- =E5=9C=A8 =E6=98=9F=E6=9C=9F=E4=B8=89, 2021-12-01 03:04:59 Amir Golds= tein =E6=92=B0=E5=86=99 ---- > > > 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 t= o 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 wo= rth 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. > > >=20 > It's true the that is a very common case, but... >=20 > > I'm not very familiar with other use cases of overlayfs except contain= er, 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. > > >=20 > metacopy feature was developed for the use case of a container > that chowns all the files in the lower image. >=20 > In that case, which is now also quite common, all the overlay inodes are > upper inodes. >=20 Regardless of metacopy or datacopy, that copy-up has already modified overl= ay 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 cas= e. > What about only re-mark overlay inode dirty if upper inode is dirty or i= s > writeably mmapped. > For other cases, it is easy to know when overlay inode becomes dirty? > Didn't you already try this? >=20 Yes, I've tried that approach in previous version but as Miklos pointed out= in the feedback there are a few of racy conditions. Thanks, Chengguang