From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>
To: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>
Cc: cgxu <cgxu519@mykernel.net>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
overlayfs <linux-unionfs@vger.kernel.org>,
Sargun Dhillon <sargun@sargun.me>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12] ovl: improve syncfs efficiency
Date: Fri, 22 May 2020 11:31:41 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJfpeguyg0e-mE5N=1VKkHWTDJKKhf-Ka6vZ02sQCFeiqRD-aQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAOQ4uxi4coKOoYar7Y==i=P21j5r8fi_0op+BZR-VQ1w5CMUew@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 9:24 AM Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 4:02 AM cgxu <cgxu519@mykernel.net> wrote:
> >
> > On 5/6/20 5:53 PM, Chengguang Xu wrote:
> > > Current syncfs(2) syscall on overlayfs just calls sync_filesystem()
> > > on upper_sb to synchronize whole dirty inodes in upper filesystem
> > > regardless of the overlay ownership of the inode. In the use case of
> > > container, when multiple containers using the same underlying upper
> > > filesystem, it has some shortcomings as below.
> > >
> > > (1) Performance
> > > Synchronization is probably heavy because it actually syncs unnecessary
> > > inodes for target overlayfs.
> > >
> > > (2) Interference
> > > Unplanned synchronization will probably impact IO performance of
> > > unrelated container processes on the other overlayfs.
> > >
> > > This patch tries to only sync target dirty upper inodes which are belong
> > > to specific overlayfs instance and wait for completion. By doing this,
> > > it is able to reduce cost of synchronization and will not seriously impact
> > > IO performance of unrelated processes.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Chengguang Xu <cgxu519@mykernel.net>
> >
> > Except explicit sycnfs is triggered by user process, there is also implicit
> > syncfs during umount process of overlayfs instance. Every syncfs will
> > deliver to upper fs and whole dirty data of upper fs syncs to persistent
> > device at same time.
> >
> > In high density container environment, especially for temporary jobs,
> > this is quite unwilling behavior. Should we provide an option to
> > mitigate this effect for containers which don't care about dirty data?
If containers don't care about dirty data, why go to great lengths to
make sure that syncfs() works? Can't we just have an option to turn
off syncing completely, for fsync, for syncfs, for shutdown, for
everything? That would be orders of magnitude simpler than the patch
you posted.
Thanks,
Miklos
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-05-22 9:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-05-06 9:53 [PATCH v12] ovl: improve syncfs efficiency Chengguang Xu
2020-05-20 1:01 ` cgxu
2020-05-20 7:24 ` Amir Goldstein
2020-05-22 9:31 ` Miklos Szeredi [this message]
2020-05-22 13:44 ` Vivek Goyal
2020-05-22 14:40 ` Giuseppe Scrivano
2020-05-26 7:50 ` cgxu
2020-05-26 8:25 ` Amir Goldstein
2020-08-31 14:22 ` cgxu
2020-08-31 14:58 ` Miklos Szeredi
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CAJfpeguyg0e-mE5N=1VKkHWTDJKKhf-Ka6vZ02sQCFeiqRD-aQ@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=miklos@szeredi.hu \
--cc=amir73il@gmail.com \
--cc=cgxu519@mykernel.net \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-unionfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sargun@sargun.me \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).