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=-5.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no 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 CBB44C4361A for ; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 14:51:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 996C722B3B for ; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 14:51:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730348AbgLDOvB (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Dec 2020 09:51:01 -0500 Received: from sender2-pp-o92.zoho.com.cn ([163.53.93.251]:25361 "EHLO sender2-pp-o92.zoho.com.cn" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728722AbgLDOvA (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Dec 2020 09:51:00 -0500 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1607093355; cv=none; d=zoho.com.cn; s=zohoarc; b=ndNANPUWVGfHucMJ5xQ1emLLGzI3+wuAz5H+8qJpHa5bTN8majf3mSf3YbkrQ6lhS5FFvCYCJAW2Xp+3Yudf8dthbAuwHjyRcHKq0n0DIYwm2Jrn22pgBESbfcYebMO990Msxt0GsHRp2Dn4yWjM2jBnVzjA7Q+/B2CoBWJtRwQ= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=zoho.com.cn; s=zohoarc; t=1607093355; h=Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Date:From:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Reply-To:References:Subject:To; bh=kK7fm3U7tpTOpXFsGow3ABcz6r3U5ljVsnieNyOaatw=; b=Eej7qJMlZ/5r1/4nwPgt1f7uVC3LBG8wAKZjXTTd1BCZ1j1F1gf11hNl2CmwwtlBYmRkIIcOYn6GDCaX3aoCEPaT8i/x9JP2WfheGh3EVK2bjT8I3P3b64qtIej3nX1x15vVof0VXpIikt9w5lF4yCFsnQn6HvvTkyjiDqRGvyU= 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=1607093355; 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=kK7fm3U7tpTOpXFsGow3ABcz6r3U5ljVsnieNyOaatw=; b=SVWdB2tRSkHPq1mhWjORMC0sGmLjXLvAYXGyx2JcDK3t3P/Hjnc3xM3bCtTZsjhL NRhNiK4s0kgom4ueUrWcojBXWwR0k/aGKoZzF5rk6eBX1n/imCeBau4ncGxtUHV2+CK R2FXDoX0HeVT0SLuz0z/k4MrlhhB6Hy6NtmC2Fkc= Received: from mail.baihui.com by mx.zoho.com.cn with SMTP id 1607093353424301.2005109054902; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 22:49:13 +0800 (CST) Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2020 22:49:13 +0800 From: Chengguang Xu Reply-To: cgxu519@mykernel.net To: "miklos" , "jack" , "amir73il" Cc: "linux-unionfs" , "linux-fsdevel" , "Chengguang Xu" Message-ID: <1762e3a7bce.e28cb82145070.9060345012556073676@mykernel.net> In-Reply-To: <20201113065555.147276-1-cgxu519@mykernel.net> References: <20201113065555.147276-1-cgxu519@mykernel.net> Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?=E5=9B=9E=E5=A4=8D:[RFC_PATCH_v4_0/9]_implement_c?= =?UTF-8?Q?ontainerized_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-unionfs@vger.kernel.org ---- =E5=9C=A8 =E6=98=9F=E6=9C=9F=E4=BA=94, 2020-11-13 14:55:46 Chengguang= Xu =E6=92=B0=E5=86=99 ---- > 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. >=20 > (1) Performance > Synchronization is probably heavy because it actually syncs unnecessary > inodes for target overlayfs. >=20 > (2) Interference > Unplanned synchronization will probably impact IO performance of > unrelated container processes on the other overlayfs. >=20 > This series try to implement containerized syncfs for overlayfs so that > only sync target dirty upper inodes which are belong to specific overlay= fs > instance. By doing this, it is able to reduce cost of synchronization an= d > will not seriously impact IO performance of unrelated processes. =20 Hi Miklos, I think this version has addressed all previous issues and comments from Ja= ck and Amir. Have you got time to review this patch series? Thanks, Chengguang