On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 5:24 PM Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 3:00 PM Bernd Schubert <bschubert@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On 9/21/23 11:33, Amir Goldstein wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 9:31 AM Bernd Schubert <bschubert@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > >> > > >> In FUSE, as of now, uncached lookups are expensive over the wire. > > >> E.g additional latencies and stressing (meta data) servers from > > >> thousands of clients. With atomic-open lookup before open > > >> can be avoided. > > >> > > >> Here is the link to performance numbers > > >> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/20220322121212.5087-1-dharamhans87@xxxxxxxxx/ > > >> > > >> Here is the libfuse pull request > > >> https://github.com/libfuse/libfuse/pull/813 > > >> > > >> The patches are passing passthrough_hp xfstests (libfuse part applied), > > >> although we had to introduce umount retries into xfstests, as recent > > >> kernels/xfstests fail umount in some tests with > > >> EBUSY - independent of atomic open. (Although outstanding for v7) > > > > > > Hi Bernd! > > > > > > I was using xfstests to test passthrough_hp (for FUSE kernel passthrough). > > > FYI, I have made some improvements to the mount helper > > > in libfuse [1] to support remount, which helps pass a few tests. > > > > Thanks, just asked there to send it separate to upstream. Now upstream. Thanks for your help! > > > > > > > > So far, I have all the tests in group -g quick.rw pass with the baseline > > > passthrough_hp (over xfs). > > > > > > Do you have a baseline for the entire quick/auto group to share with me? > > > > Please find my results attached. > > Not too bad. > 3 more tests can pass with my mount helper fix for remount ;) > FYI, here is a wdiff of my -g auto passthough_hp test run compared to yours: [-unpatched-6.5-]{+upatched-6.6-rc3+} Failures: generic/003 [-generic/020-] {+generic/099+} generic/184 generic/192 generic/263 [-generic/294 generic/306-] {+generic/317 generic/318 generic/319 generic/375+} generic/401 {+generic/423+} generic/426 [-generic/427-] generic/434 [-generic/452-] {+generic/444+} generic/467 [-generic/468-] generic/477 [-generic/478-] generic/617 {+generic/532+} generic/631 generic/633 generic/683 [-generic/688-] Some of my {+NEW+} failures are because I have POSIX_ACL support enabled in Kconfig, so the same tests are [not run] in your results. I suspect that several permission related tests that PASS for you and FAIL for me may also be because of enabled POSIX_ACL. I was also running passthouhg_hp with -odefault_permissions, but AFAIK this did not change the fstests results. > > > > > > > Can you share the patch that you are using to avoid the EBUSY errors? > > > > > > The simple version to avoid _most_ of EBUSY is this > > You know, I am testing passthrough_hp with kernel 6.6-rc3 and I did not encounter any EBUST errors. Maybe there is some relevant vfs fix in 6.6-rc3, because you were testing 6.5? Or maybe it's because my test VM has only 2 cpus. Thanks, Amir.
