From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-12.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED, USER_AGENT_GIT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B899EC4363A for ; Sun, 25 Oct 2020 03:42:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C639207E8 for ; Sun, 25 Oct 2020 03:42:43 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=mykernel.net header.i=cgxu519@mykernel.net header.b="F8tZJMVX" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1766979AbgJYDmn (ORCPT ); Sat, 24 Oct 2020 23:42:43 -0400 Received: from sender2-op-o12.zoho.com.cn ([163.53.93.243]:17173 "EHLO sender2-op-o12.zoho.com.cn" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1766958AbgJYDmm (ORCPT ); Sat, 24 Oct 2020 23:42:42 -0400 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1603597315; cv=none; d=zoho.com.cn; s=zohoarc; b=pA0pH32x4imtrjsVanGnCFG+ScEigAqyEkm3+d44yyhr8I6rIdfz/LrSpogzBjOTo5GD62C4StEzduARXDRU1ltOhhyf2i7Km4263vmCPi5PsQiSlAsxNDlqGPpP3u+iEGbghO/jPTAPe1U1FgEIqUi3dnuG/7D2Bf/E98nEFhg= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=zoho.com.cn; s=zohoarc; t=1603597315; h=Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Date:From:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Message-ID:References:Subject:To; bh=vu/ag4Tg6S+Hh8bpKgvQ+I+D5rt1ARq7efArRp49AkA=; b=U1Cf960g2plCFVPSNteG0fZ20YPwJVHU9R0NcZHreWNrAKcsXTjCGAOkCn67DoF8q+r+XRmMnvHSTPM1U175Z8ttf/Bo0HUhw8JyeIlBjKi6bj6Hap05JlnFRaRc8edPDU3GumYO6LNdE3BjXKZGFM9LPVwM86OnWoOj3934NhM= 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= header.from= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1603597315; s=zohomail; d=mykernel.net; i=cgxu519@mykernel.net; h=From:To:Cc:Message-ID:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:MIME-Version:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type; bh=vu/ag4Tg6S+Hh8bpKgvQ+I+D5rt1ARq7efArRp49AkA=; b=F8tZJMVXnF/UoKKQdtrd6Vf8XLcubKuViJAc+CKCOWq0cDQmsYXFzqqTXIXPSLmu lzLAaBIxe5ljhhY9+b4sScKwxpi2FRZEKNs1axdphb5uAPPnnWvFzohEqqsWeWrZS6f NwWMUEmM3vx6iIxqJ5BYeaN+yHpf7bDJqpQ/wklE= Received: from localhost.localdomain (113.88.132.7 [113.88.132.7]) by mx.zoho.com.cn with SMTPS id 160359731470039.422630673296794; Sun, 25 Oct 2020 11:41:54 +0800 (CST) From: Chengguang Xu To: miklos@szeredi.hu, amir73il@gmail.com, jack@suse.cz Cc: linux-unionfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Chengguang Xu Message-ID: <20201025034117.4918-9-cgxu519@mykernel.net> Subject: [RFC PATCH v2 8/8] ovl: implement containerized syncfs for overlayfs Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2020 11:41:17 +0800 X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.26.2 In-Reply-To: <20201025034117.4918-1-cgxu519@mykernel.net> References: <20201025034117.4918-1-cgxu519@mykernel.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-ZohoCNMailClient: External Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf8 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-unionfs@vger.kernel.org Now overlayfs can only sync dirty inode during syncfs, so remove unnecessary sync_filesystem() on upper file system. Signed-off-by: Chengguang Xu --- fs/overlayfs/super.c | 8 +++++--- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/overlayfs/super.c b/fs/overlayfs/super.c index 1d04117fb6ad..df33e8c8f1d0 100644 --- a/fs/overlayfs/super.c +++ b/fs/overlayfs/super.c @@ -271,8 +271,7 @@ static int ovl_sync_fs(struct super_block *sb, int wait= ) =09 * Not called for sync(2) call or an emergency sync (SB_I_SKIP_SYNC). =09 * All the super blocks will be iterated, including upper_sb. =09 * -=09 * If this is a syncfs(2) call, then we do need to call -=09 * sync_filesystem() on upper_sb, but enough if we do it when being +=09 * If this is a syncfs(2) call, it will be enough we do it when being =09 * called with wait =3D=3D 1. =09 */ =09if (!wait) @@ -281,7 +280,10 @@ static int ovl_sync_fs(struct super_block *sb, int wai= t) =09upper_sb =3D ovl_upper_mnt(ofs)->mnt_sb; =20 =09down_read(&upper_sb->s_umount); -=09ret =3D sync_filesystem(upper_sb); +=09if (upper_sb->s_op->sync_fs) +=09=09ret =3D upper_sb->s_op->sync_fs(upper_sb, wait); +=09if (!ret) +=09=09ret =3D sync_blockdev(upper_sb->s_bdev); =09up_read(&upper_sb->s_umount); =20 =09return ret; --=20 2.26.2