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=-3.6 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS 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 95DD7C4361A for ; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 15:03:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 618E222B2D for ; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 15:03:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730378AbgLDPDH (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Dec 2020 10:03:07 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:42588 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1730350AbgLDPDG (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Dec 2020 10:03:06 -0500 Received: from mail-vs1-xe43.google.com (mail-vs1-xe43.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e43]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 933DDC0613D1 for ; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 07:02:26 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-vs1-xe43.google.com with SMTP id u7so3372591vsq.11 for ; Fri, 04 Dec 2020 07:02:26 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=szeredi.hu; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=L8Av0b0tkSDoVYAGA9Ul3UP0kLwwbvt1kNS0v+OC54s=; b=Xm5/6uLpgEYar8q6Uww1lyRELI9tbT7fkb8OU6oHeRzLyQOPQAxVUKzCzSv59vRQNW ulc5cP7UYGP9yfc0sunyEaE7hejWfb09FT2bLgt3XI8cjbTFkpPRTRknTXIFFhOTViaC i2+YxFZNLG2KC7eeA8yPoq4NZgBqGSaJ3/ot4= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=L8Av0b0tkSDoVYAGA9Ul3UP0kLwwbvt1kNS0v+OC54s=; b=OaSo4dKM3hLR+85xpBgsBtV/QVBHH0maLn0d8DxE2RZODiJJMTixhfKpgOOzqRfRES tlW4l9Lv7CigcLixO5a8ecqoLE56FlL5QXtgXDZW+T6y6IgPYORFTqPYc53lMefDAGis eM7eon3D4o7oBUEmalLj6BmTvrCx8TxJE0Fl8VGbFJ5DWxALz5W1KQxgHF84VhOoBOiA KloIOzE0lOsiZ74jtxZPhX7Ze6QXgAs+e95vRvURwTls5NFd5P24aUVfiWal8KRv4l/T sz3bLBf10m3+8ZI8vwtTUhZUQ2XBJy6Oz4QLzwGNCTdQCdc6qa8NHnmrTogf8XsG7jSM XHkg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531z7+w4pir5S1mmhiLf8TPDiPDQPbUaYyNxPIro7KakGtWJyysP ZPrYls+iM5vr/YU12BuH0jjFJlh8tCfs8Fzq8fB0KZFzldI= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxwaq9QG5yLGeL/Oybu4svoQAZwW6p0AtOH1k3WSVCT5wGrFbndLVa39lzuAECYH/4XoNTWvCSFyUHNvAkFJ8I= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6102:126c:: with SMTP id q12mr3992650vsg.9.1607094145824; Fri, 04 Dec 2020 07:02:25 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20201113065555.147276-1-cgxu519@mykernel.net> <1762e3a7bce.e28cb82145070.9060345012556073676@mykernel.net> In-Reply-To: <1762e3a7bce.e28cb82145070.9060345012556073676@mykernel.net> From: Miklos Szeredi Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2020 16:02:14 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 0/9] implement containerized syncfs for overlayfs To: Chengguang Xu Cc: jack , amir73il , linux-unionfs , linux-fsdevel Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-unionfs@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 3:50 PM Chengguang Xu wrote: > > ---- =E5=9C=A8 =E6=98=9F=E6=9C=9F=E4=BA=94, 2020-11-13 14:55:46 Chenggua= ng 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. > > > > (1) Performance > > Synchronization is probably heavy because it actually syncs unnecessar= y > > inodes for target overlayfs. > > > > (2) Interference > > Unplanned synchronization will probably impact IO performance of > > unrelated container processes on the other overlayfs. > > > > This series try to implement containerized syncfs for overlayfs so tha= t > > only sync target dirty upper inodes which are belong to specific overl= ayfs > > instance. By doing this, it is able to reduce cost of synchronization = and > > will not seriously impact IO performance of unrelated processes. > > Hi Miklos, > > I think this version has addressed all previous issues and comments from = Jack > and Amir. Have you got time to review this patch series? Hopefully yes. I'm really keen to finish off the unprivileged overlay patches first. Will test and post a new version shortly. Thanks, Miklos