+gluster-devel Ashish just spoke to me about need of GC of inodes due to some state in inode that is being proposed in EC. Hence adding more people to conversation. > > On 4 September 2017 at 12:34, Csaba Henk <chenk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > I don't know, depends on how sophisticated GC we need/want/can get by. I > > > guess the complexity will be inherent, ie. that of the algorithm chosen > > > and > > > how we address concurrency & performance impacts, but once that's got > > > right > > > the other aspects of implementation won't be hard. > > > > > > Eg. would it be good just to maintain a simple LRU list? > > > > > Yes. I was also thinking of leveraging lru list. We can invalidate first "n" > inodes from lru list of fuse inode table. > > > > > That might work for starters. > > > > > > > > Csaba > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 8:48 AM, Nithya Balachandran <nbalacha@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > wrote: > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> On 4 September 2017 at 12:14, Csaba Henk <chenk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >> > > >>> Basically how I see the fuse invalidate calls as rescuers of sanity. > > >>> > > >>> Normally, when you have lot of certain kind of stuff that tends to > > >>> accumulate, the immediate thought is: let's set up some garbage > > >>> collection > > >>> mechanism, that will take care of keeping the accumulation at bay. But > > >>> that's what doesn't work with inodes in a naive way, as they are > > >>> referenced > > >>> from kernel, so we have to keep them around until kernel tells us it's > > >>> giving up its reference. However, with the fuse invalidate calls we can > > >>> take the initiative and instruct the kernel: "hey, kernel, give up your > > >>> references to this thing!" > > >>> > > >>> So we are actually free to implement any kind of inode GC in glusterfs, > > >>> just have to take care to add the proper callback to fuse_invalidate_* > > >>> and > > >>> we are good to go. > > >>> > > >>> > > >> That sounds good and something we need to do in the near future. Is this > > >> something that is easy to implement? > > >> > > >> > > >>> Csaba > > >>> > > >>> On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 7:00 AM, Nithya Balachandran > > >>> <nbalacha@xxxxxxxxxx > > >>> > wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> On 4 September 2017 at 10:25, Raghavendra Gowdappa > > >>>> <rgowdapp@xxxxxxxxxx > > >>>> > wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- > > >>>>> > From: "Nithya Balachandran" <nbalacha@xxxxxxxxxx> > > >>>>> > Sent: Monday, September 4, 2017 10:19:37 AM > > >>>>> > Subject: Fuse mounts and inodes > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > Hi, > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > One of the reasons for the memory consumption in gluster fuse > > >>>>> > mounts > > >>>>> is the > > >>>>> > number of inodes in the table which are never kicked out. > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > Is there any way to default to an entry-timeout and > > >>>>> attribute-timeout value > > >>>>> > while mounting Gluster using Fuse? Say 60s each so those entries > > >>>>> will be > > >>>>> > purged periodically? > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Once the entry timeouts, inodes won't be purged. Kernel sends a > > >>>>> lookup > > >>>>> to revalidate the mapping of path to inode. AFAIK, reverse > > >>>>> invalidation > > >>>>> (see inode_invalidate) is the only way to make kernel forget > > >>>>> inodes/attributes. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Is that something that can be done from the Fuse mount ? Or is this > > >>>> something that needs to be added to Fuse? > > >>>> > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > Regards, > > >>>>> > Nithya > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
