MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <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>
 <CAOQ4uxiCYFeeH8oUUNG+rDCru_1XcwB6fR2keS1C6=d_yD9XzA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20211201134610.GA1815@quack2.suse.cz> <17d76cf59ee.12f4517f122167.2687299278423224602@mykernel.net>
 <CAOQ4uxiEjGms-sKhrVDtDHSEk97Wku5oPxnmy4vVB=6yRE_Hdg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOQ4uxiEjGms-sKhrVDtDHSEk97Wku5oPxnmy4vVB=6yRE_Hdg@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 2 Dec 2021 01:23:17 +0200
Message-ID: <CAOQ4uxg6FATciQhzRifOft4gMZj15G=UA6MUiPX2n9-NR5+1Pg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: ovl_flush() behavior
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"
Precedence: bulk

> >
> > To be honest I even don't fully understand what's the ->flush() logic in overlayfs.
> > Why should we open new underlying file when calling ->flush()?
> > Is it still correct in the case of opening lower layer first then copy-uped case?
> >
>
> The semantics of flush() are far from being uniform across filesystems.
> most local filesystems do nothing on close.
> most network fs only flush dirty data when a writer closes a file
> but not when a reader closes a file.
> It is hard to imagine that applications rely on flush-on-close of
> rdonly fd behavior and I agree that flushing only if original fd was upper
> makes more sense, so I am not sure if it is really essential for
> overlayfs to open an upper rdonly fd just to do whatever the upper fs
> would have done on close of rdonly fd, but maybe there is no good
> reason to change this behavior either.
>

On second thought, I think there may be a good reason to change
ovl_flush() otherwise I wouldn't have submitted commit
a390ccb316be ("fuse: add FOPEN_NOFLUSH") - I did observe
applications that frequently open short lived rdonly fds and suffered
undesired latencies on close().

As for "changing existing behavior", I think that most fs used as
upper do not implement flush at all.
Using fuse/virtiofs as overlayfs upper is quite new, so maybe that
is not a problem and maybe the new behavior would be preferred
for those users?

Thanks,
Amir.