Re: [PATCH v3 0/6] Composefs: an opportunistically sharing verified image filesystem

From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>
To: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>
Cc: Alexander Larsson <alexl@redhat.com>,
	gscrivan@redhat.com, brauner@kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	david@fromorbit.com, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk,
	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>,
	Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>,
	Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@linux.alibaba.com>,
	Jingbo Xu <jefflexu@linux.alibaba.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/6] Composefs: an opportunistically sharing verified image filesystem
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2023 11:35:07 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJfpegtRacAoWdhVxCE8gpLVmQege4yz8u11mvXCs2weBBQ4jg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAOQ4uximQZ_DL1atbrCg0bQ8GN8JfrEartxDSP+GB_hFvYQOhg@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 at 20:06, Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> Apart from that, I still fail to get some thoughts (apart from
> > >>> unprivileged
> > >>> mounts) how EROFS + overlayfs combination fails on automative real
> > >>> workloads
> > >>> aside from "ls -lR" (readdir + stat).
> > >>>
> > >>> And eventually we still need overlayfs for most use cases to do
> > >>> writable
> > >>> stuffs, anyway, it needs some words to describe why such < 1s
> > >>> difference is
> > >>> very very important to the real workload as you already mentioned
> > >>> before.
> > >>>
> > >>> And with overlayfs lazy lookup, I think it can be close to ~100ms or
> > >>> better.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> If we had an overlay.fs-verity xattr, then I think there are no
> > >> individual features lacking for it to work for the automotive usecase
> > >> I'm working on. Nor for the OCI container usecase. However, the
> > >> possibility of doing something doesn't mean it is the better technical
> > >> solution.
> > >>
> > >> The container usecase is very important in real world Linux use today,
> > >> and as such it makes sense to have a technically excellent solution for
> > >> it, not just a workable solution. Obviously we all have different
> > >> viewpoints of what that is, but these are the reasons why I think a
> > >> composefs solution is better:
> > >>
> > >> * It is faster than all other approaches for the one thing it actually
> > >> needs to do (lookup and readdir performance). Other kinds of
> > >> performance (file i/o speed, etc) is up to the backing filesystem
> > >> anyway.
> > >>
> > >> Even if there are possible approaches to make overlayfs perform better
> > >> here (the "lazy lookup" idea) it will not reach the performance of
> > >> composefs, while further complicating the overlayfs codebase. (btw, did
> > >> someone ask Miklos what he thinks of that idea?)
> > >>
> > >
> > > Well, Miklos was CCed (now in TO:)
> > > I did ask him specifically about relaxing -ouserxarr,metacopy,redirect:
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-unionfs/20230126082228.rweg75ztaexykejv@wittgenstein/T/#mc375df4c74c0d41aa1a2251c97509c6522487f96
> > > but no response on that yet.
> > >
> > > TBH, in the end, Miklos really is the one who is going to have the most
> > > weight on the outcome.
> > >
> > > If Miklos is interested in adding this functionality to overlayfs, you are going
> > > to have a VERY hard sell, trying to merge composefs as an independent
> > > expert filesystem. The community simply does not approve of this sort of
> > > fragmentation unless there is a very good reason to do that.
> > >
> > >> For the automotive usecase we have strict cold-boot time requirements
> > >> that make cold-cache performance very important to us. Of course, there
> > >> is no simple time requirements for the specific case of listing files
> > >> in an image, but any improvement in cold-cache performance for both the
> > >> ostree rootfs and the containers started during boot will be worth its
> > >> weight in gold trying to reach these hard KPIs.
> > >>
> > >> * It uses less memory, as we don't need the extra inodes that comes
> > >> with the overlayfs mount. (See profiling data in giuseppes mail[1]).
> > >
> > > Understood, but we will need profiling data with the optimized ovl
> > > (or with the single blob hack) to compare the relevant alternatives.
> >
> > My little request again, could you help benchmark on your real workload
> > rather than "ls -lR" stuff?  If your hard KPI is really what as you
> > said, why not just benchmark the real workload now and write a detailed
> > analysis to everyone to explain it's a _must_ that we should upstream
> > a new stacked fs for this?
> >
>
> I agree that benchmarking the actual KPI (boot time) will have
> a much stronger impact and help to build a much stronger case
> for composefs if you can prove that the boot time difference really matters.
>
> In order to test boot time on fair grounds, I prepared for you a POC
> branch with overlayfs lazy lookup:
> https://github.com/amir73il/linux/commits/ovl-lazy-lowerdata

Sorry about being late to the party...

Can you give a little detail about what exactly this does?

Thanks,
Miklos