From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-io1-f46.google.com ([209.85.166.46]:34592 "EHLO mail-io1-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725997AbeLGNEo (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Dec 2018 08:04:44 -0500 Received: by mail-io1-f46.google.com with SMTP id r9so3210613ioa.1 for ; Fri, 07 Dec 2018 05:04:44 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <87va46pgqu.fsf@vostro.rath.org> <878t11ts2d.fsf@vostro.rath.org> In-Reply-To: <878t11ts2d.fsf@vostro.rath.org> From: Miklos Szeredi Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2018 14:04:32 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [fuse-devel] [fuse] Speeding up readdir() To: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, fuse-devel Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 1:55 PM Nikolaus Rath wrote: > I am not 100% sure because of the atime invalidation issue. Apart from > that, it definitely was not timed out. The atime invalidation is different because that never results in LOOKUP requests being generated. > Are you saying that I should not be seeing lookup() requests after > (non-plus) readdir() if the dentry is already cached? If the dentry is already cached, and the timeout has not expired, then you shouldn't see LOOKUP requests for that dentry. Hmm, I see some strange entry invalidation calls in NFS export. Do you know if there's NFS export or open_by_handle(2) calls? Thanks, Miklos