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=-15.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=unavailable 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 835F1C433ED for ; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 12:24:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C92A61278 for ; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 12:24:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S240791AbhDLMYz (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Apr 2021 08:24:55 -0400 Received: from sender2-pp-o92.zoho.com.cn ([163.53.93.251]:25325 "EHLO sender2-pp-o92.zoho.com.cn" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S240245AbhDLMYt (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Apr 2021 08:24:49 -0400 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1618230246; cv=none; d=zoho.com.cn; s=zohoarc; b=bEvDju2VmmhyxA0MQHI3ieq9imj1Lv/YeBjbYNc2fbD2CZ5NLfO2PQNh/BhxcYktVBwPqxVa14v/T8RJ2nwYCK/rTPDCwv96gmKsdi9uKxkFPjmb+e1BvnDRDLmv7sBkb2eycGSNKH+0u5QgKQy3BGHKEggudgMzl7jRh13XUCQ= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=zoho.com.cn; s=zohoarc; t=1618230246; h=Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Date:From:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Reply-To:References:Subject:To; bh=jyoRTl11XnFlwSLYSvB+ALJyQNLOu0fvqy3RRrlj+cI=; b=GuJe24rvJcofVNTiLmibx7cqeoaR1J3R6ItXPvoO3BPSw86arDYuP7ZhxmRC8CWMGdlvKVuGKSklP4r6hqtBFv+deOadlDJhj0V25xlKhNr/QPmemRFBkSTMysScrxxaV/wC7zIJAG4jQ1QCL3EOdWxY3EN+RBejXGyZR043Z7U= 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=1618230246; s=zohomail; d=mykernel.net; i=cgxu519@mykernel.net; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; bh=jyoRTl11XnFlwSLYSvB+ALJyQNLOu0fvqy3RRrlj+cI=; b=Zv5i308hSijNDqMK1TPhqGfuhftm/zlAUQggezo7aFYaeMjFqMIvOH1GtzuD6XNR bVIN1D/UgEs3sUOAWStAmcS4rioBoEUROEkMLtRpPGD3l9/VxIOjKMoXOZOd1Rqa3iB vu+j0zjBJ4Zkr+3dy06/g7Cv1vfnPq18JB9cwwS8= Received: from mail.baihui.com by mx.zoho.com.cn with SMTP id 161823024420153.377930275199105; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 20:24:04 +0800 (CST) Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2021 20:24:04 +0800 From: Chengguang Xu Reply-To: cgxu519@mykernel.net To: "Miklos Szeredi" Cc: "Jan Kara" , "Amir Goldstein" , "overlayfs" , "linux-fsdevel" Message-ID: <178c609f366.d091ec3b20881.6800515353355931740@mykernel.net> In-Reply-To: References: <20201113065555.147276-1-cgxu519@mykernel.net> <20201113065555.147276-10-cgxu519@mykernel.net> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 9/9] ovl: implement containerized syncfs for overlayfs MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Importance: Medium User-Agent: ZohoCN Mail X-Mailer: ZohoCN Mail Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org ---- =E5=9C=A8 =E6=98=9F=E6=9C=9F=E4=BA=94, 2021-04-09 21:51:26 Miklos Sze= redi =E6=92=B0=E5=86=99 ---- > On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 7:57 AM Chengguang Xu wro= te: > > > > 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 | 11 ++++++++--- > > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/fs/overlayfs/super.c b/fs/overlayfs/super.c > > index 982b3954b47c..58507f1cd583 100644 > > --- a/fs/overlayfs/super.c > > +++ b/fs/overlayfs/super.c > > @@ -15,6 +15,8 @@ > > #include > > #include > > #include > > +#include > > +#include > > #include "overlayfs.h" > > > > MODULE_AUTHOR("Miklos Szeredi "); > > @@ -270,8 +272,7 @@ static int ovl_sync_fs(struct super_block *sb, int= wait) > > * Not called for sync(2) call or an emergency sync (SB_I_SKIP= _SYNC). > > * All the super blocks will be iterated, including upper_sb. > > * > > - * If this is a syncfs(2) call, then we do need to call > > - * sync_filesystem() on upper_sb, but enough if we do it when = being > > + * if this is a syncfs(2) call, it will be enough we do it whe= n being > > * called with wait =3D=3D 1. > > */ > > if (!wait) > > @@ -280,7 +281,11 @@ static int ovl_sync_fs(struct super_block *sb, in= t wait) > > upper_sb =3D ovl_upper_mnt(ofs)->mnt_sb; > > > > down_read(&upper_sb->s_umount); > > - ret =3D sync_filesystem(upper_sb); > > + wait_sb_inodes(upper_sb); > > + if (upper_sb->s_op->sync_fs) > > + ret =3D upper_sb->s_op->sync_fs(upper_sb, wait); > > + if (!ret) > > + ret =3D sync_blockdev(upper_sb->s_bdev); >=20 > Should this instead be __sync_blockdev(..., wait)? =20 I don't remember why we skipped the case of (wait =3D=3D 0) here, just gues= s it's not worth to export internal function __sync_blockdev() to modules, do you prefer to = call __sync_blockdev() and handle both nowait and wait cases? Thanks, Chengguang