From: Bharata B Rao <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Jan Blunck <email@example.com>
Cc: Dave Hansen <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Erez Zadok <email@example.com>,
firstname.lastname@example.org, Christoph Hellwig <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] Union Mount: A Directory listing approach with lseek support
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 20:40:12 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20071206151012.GA30922@in.ibm.com> (raw)
On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 11:01:18AM +0100, Jan Blunck wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 05, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > I think the key here is what kind of consistency we're trying to
> > provide. If a directory is being changed underneath a reader, what
> > kinds of guarantees do they get about the contents of their directory
> > read? When do those guarantees start? Are there any at open() time?
> But we still want to be compliant to what POSIX defines. The problem isn't the
> consistency of the readdir result but the seekdir/telldir interface. IMHO that
> interface is totally broken: you need to be able to find every offset given by
> telldir since the last open. The problem is that seekdir isn't able to return
> errors. Otherwise you could just forbid seeking on union directories.
Also, what kind of consistency is expected when a directory is open(2)ed
and readdir(2) and lseek(2) are applied to it when the directory gets
changed underneath the reader. From this:
the behaviour/guarantees wasn't apparent to me.
> > Rather than give each _dirent_ an offset, could we give each sub-mount
> > an offset? Let's say we have three members comprising a union mount
> > directory. The first has 100 dirents, the second 200, and the third
> > 10,000. When the first readdir is done, we populate the table like
> > this:
> > mount_offset = 0;
> > mount_offset = 100;
> > mount_offset = 300;
> > If someone seeks back to 150, then we subtrack the mount's offset
> > (100), and realize that we want the 50th dirent from mount.
> Yes, that is a nice idea and it is exactly what I have implemented in my patch
> series. But you forgot one thing: directories are not flat files. The dentry
> offset in a directory is a random cookie. Therefore it is not possible to have
> a linear mapping without allocating memory.
And I defined this linear behaviour on the cache of dirents we maintain
in the approach I posted. And the main reason we maintain cache of
dirents in memory is for duplicate elimination.
> > I don't know whether we're bound to this:
> > http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007908775/xsh/readdir.html
> > "If a file is removed from or added to the directory after the
> > most recent call to opendir() or rewinddir(), whether a
> > subsequent call to readdir() returns an entry for that file is
> > unspecified."
> > But that would seem to tell me that once you populate a table such as
> > the one I've described and create it at open(dir) time, you don't
> > actually ever need to update it.
> Yes, I'm using such a patch on our S390 buildservers to work around some
> readdir/seek/rm problem with old glibc versions. It seems to work but on the
> other hand this are really huge systems and I haven't run out of memory while
> doing a readdir yet ;)
> The proper way to implement this would be to cache the offsets on a per inode
> base. Otherwise the user could easily DoS this by opening a number of
> directories and never close them.
You mean cache the offsets or dirents ? How would that solve
the seek problem ? How would it enable you to define a seek behaviour
for the entire union of directories ?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-12-06 15:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-12-05 14:37 [RFC PATCH 0/5] Union Mount: A Directory listing approach with lseek support Bharata B Rao
2007-12-05 14:38 ` [RFC PATCH 1/5] Remove existing directory listing implementation Bharata B Rao
2007-12-05 16:27 ` Dave Hansen
2007-12-05 14:39 ` [RFC PATCH 2/5] Add New directory listing approach Bharata B Rao
2007-12-05 14:40 ` [RFC PATCH 4/5] Directory seek support Bharata B Rao
2007-12-05 14:41 ` [RFC PATCH 5/5] Directory cache invalidation Bharata B Rao
2007-12-05 15:01 ` [RFC PATCH 3/5] Add list_for_each_entry_reverse_from() Bharata B Rao
2007-12-05 17:21 ` [RFC PATCH 0/5] Union Mount: A Directory listing approach with lseek support Dave Hansen
2007-12-06 10:01 ` Jan Blunck
2007-12-06 15:10 ` Bharata B Rao [this message]
2007-12-06 17:54 ` Dave Hansen
2007-12-07 1:48 ` sfjro
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).