MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <17c5adfe5ea.12f1be94625921.4478415437452327206@mykernel.net>
 <CAJfpegt4jZpSCXGFk2ieqUXVm3m=ng7QtSzZp2bXVs07bfrbXg@mail.gmail.com>
 <17d268ba3ce.1199800543649.1713755891767595962@mykernel.net>
 <CAJfpegttQreuuD_jLgJmrYpsLKBBe2LmB5NSj6F5dHoTzqPArw@mail.gmail.com>
 <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>
 <CAOQ4uxidK-yDMZoZtoRwTZLgSTr1o2Mu2L55vJRNJDLV0-Sb1w@mail.gmail.com>
 <17d73da701b.e571c37220081.6904057835107693340@mykernel.net> <17d74b08dcd.c0e94e6320632.9167792887632811518@mykernel.net>
In-Reply-To: <17d74b08dcd.c0e94e6320632.9167792887632811518@mykernel.net>
From:   Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 1 Dec 2021 09:19:17 +0200
Message-ID: <CAOQ4uxiCYFeeH8oUUNG+rDCru_1XcwB6fR2keS1C6=d_yD9XzA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v5 06/10] ovl: implement overlayfs' ->write_inode operation
To:     Chengguang Xu <cgxu519@mykernel.net>
Cc:     Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        overlayfs <linux-unionfs@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        ronyjin <ronyjin@tencent.com>,
        charliecgxu <charliecgxu@tencent.com>,
        Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 8:31 AM Chengguang Xu <cgxu519@mykernel.net> wrote:
>
>
>  ---- =E5=9C=A8 =E6=98=9F=E6=9C=9F=E4=B8=89, 2021-12-01 10:37:15 Chenggua=
ng Xu <cgxu519@mykernel.net> =E6=92=B0=E5=86=99 ----
>  >
>  >  ---- =E5=9C=A8 =E6=98=9F=E6=9C=9F=E4=B8=89, 2021-12-01 03:04:59 Amir =
Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com> =E6=92=B0=E5=86=99 ----
>  >  > >  > I was thinking about this a bit more and I don't think I buy t=
his
>  >  > >  > explanation. What I rather think is happening is that real wor=
k for syncfs
>  >  > >  > (writeback_inodes_sb() and sync_inodes_sb() calls) gets offloa=
ded 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 accura=
tely 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 co=
ntainer, 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 inode=
s 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 us=
e 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 dirt=
y?
>  >  > Didn't you already try this?
>  >  >
>  >
>  > Yes, I've tried that approach in previous version but as Miklos pointe=
d out in the
>  > feedback there are a few of racy conditions.
>  >

Right..

>
> So the final solution to handle all the concerns looks like accurately ma=
rk overlay inode
> diry on modification and re-mark dirty only for mmaped file in ->write_in=
ode().
>
> 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.