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=-13.6 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,INCLUDES_PATCH, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED 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 45888C43460 for ; Fri, 9 Apr 2021 13:51:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E9FE61108 for ; Fri, 9 Apr 2021 13:51:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231756AbhDINvw (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Apr 2021 09:51:52 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:48412 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232642AbhDINvv (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Apr 2021 09:51:51 -0400 Received: from mail-vs1-xe2b.google.com (mail-vs1-xe2b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e2b]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 86740C061761 for ; Fri, 9 Apr 2021 06:51:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vs1-xe2b.google.com with SMTP id b20so2632751vsr.11 for ; Fri, 09 Apr 2021 06:51:37 -0700 (PDT) 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; bh=17gAB4/Xt1EcJ6duLXHgiCVFdSPwnzL/vuA8S86w0nY=; b=nMoosH4hAMExjqx73VwI6ccfuBMeqOOlug3s2ahPExh1d7czDmhVMSGWoyRJFWu9yw w/D4H+GN/48/WgLwgaPwAlgprTRjNFcMkcd8bBKhjsaI1iGtkngb6asqgGovqTvTUnp/ gqwtCIkQ4jdzVftGhpNvjKHSEKyD8HpnHf89Y= 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; bh=17gAB4/Xt1EcJ6duLXHgiCVFdSPwnzL/vuA8S86w0nY=; b=RVOEwX+rSvqhFpx1vmv253MjpJpyEJ98SCstdKDLd+nZZyjyffq4OwakFAXm02he8W rft0QOnbsDar0TzO24EYSOxfpwNaOW7u8n4l7mSafJwElRgYhtAeCVh4fH5RizIXaR1q /hxEJ4vDBrJYKqfqdRYo5MYq2rwmATw2n4/Kkna5m7NAiTNpdvp6RSC5F4t6cMLTkvF7 L5KlGe/iDnG1cRrvJ3m3hZvjyLvmTihngpjpNWluIsImFfUvX9Pw4l6EQ5oyqKUD5Bpp QadXMo+zHjza6q3Q5QoO8vsF739hL63xTbxxjKF15ChmuIzx2IyUiYYiScQqQGJ9jZwd 0NMA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM53020bBOh/0W69/w5kNOSR4k4Qm8TZflN2fD1eXDb2GgIk6t5jgR kUQpqzyi6Goeig+05U3WdgSIGYcct9fXKXOpnA3itw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxhsn0VhTmPepqwZIxdPE/jJRKz40lPlfAjtAlHk6AKV+A1Dipj6Ahx1cPdaWfVBS0oSfKjHovl4UqmJo8jOQ4= X-Received: by 2002:a67:e056:: with SMTP id n22mr11332309vsl.0.1617976296786; Fri, 09 Apr 2021 06:51:36 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20201113065555.147276-1-cgxu519@mykernel.net> <20201113065555.147276-10-cgxu519@mykernel.net> In-Reply-To: <20201113065555.147276-10-cgxu519@mykernel.net> From: Miklos Szeredi Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2021 15:51:26 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 9/9] ovl: implement containerized syncfs for overlayfs To: Chengguang Xu Cc: Jan Kara , Amir Goldstein , overlayfs , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-unionfs@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 7:57 AM Chengguang Xu wrote: > > 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 when being > * called with wait == 1. > */ > if (!wait) > @@ -280,7 +281,11 @@ static int ovl_sync_fs(struct super_block *sb, int wait) > upper_sb = ovl_upper_mnt(ofs)->mnt_sb; > > down_read(&upper_sb->s_umount); > - ret = sync_filesystem(upper_sb); > + wait_sb_inodes(upper_sb); > + if (upper_sb->s_op->sync_fs) > + ret = upper_sb->s_op->sync_fs(upper_sb, wait); > + if (!ret) > + ret = sync_blockdev(upper_sb->s_bdev); Should this instead be __sync_blockdev(..., wait)? Thanks, Miklos