Hi Bernd, On Fri, Feb 07 2025, Bernd Schubert wrote: > On 1/15/25 17:32, Luis Henriques wrote: >> Currently userspace is able to notify the kernel to invalidate the cache >> for an inode. This means that, if all the inodes in a filesystem need to >> be invalidated, then userspace needs to iterate through all of them and do >> this kernel notification separately. >> >> This patch adds a new option that allows userspace to invalidate all the >> inodes with a single notification operation. In addition to invalidate all >> the inodes, it also shrinks the superblock dcache. >> >> Signed-off-by: Luis Henriques <luis@xxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> Just an additional note that this patch could eventually be simplified if >> Dave Chinner patch to iterate through the superblock inodes[1] is merged. >> >> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241002014017.3801899-3-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx >> >> fs/fuse/inode.c | 53 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> include/uapi/linux/fuse.h | 3 +++ >> 2 files changed, 56 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/fs/fuse/inode.c b/fs/fuse/inode.c >> index 3ce4f4e81d09..1fd9a5f303da 100644 >> --- a/fs/fuse/inode.c >> +++ b/fs/fuse/inode.c >> @@ -546,6 +546,56 @@ struct inode *fuse_ilookup(struct fuse_conn *fc, u64 nodeid, >> return NULL; >> } >> >> +static int fuse_reverse_inval_all(struct fuse_conn *fc) >> +{ >> + struct fuse_mount *fm; >> + struct super_block *sb; >> + struct inode *inode, *old_inode = NULL; >> + struct fuse_inode *fi; >> + >> + inode = fuse_ilookup(fc, FUSE_ROOT_ID, NULL); >> + if (!inode) >> + return -ENOENT; >> + >> + fm = get_fuse_mount(inode); >> + iput(inode); >> + if (!fm) >> + return -ENOENT; >> + sb = fm->sb; >> + >> + spin_lock(&sb->s_inode_list_lock); >> + list_for_each_entry(inode, &sb->s_inodes, i_sb_list) { >> + spin_lock(&inode->i_lock); >> + if ((inode->i_state & (I_FREEING|I_WILL_FREE|I_NEW)) || >> + !atomic_read(&inode->i_count)) { >> + spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock); >> + continue; >> + } >> + >> + __iget(inode); >> + spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock); >> + spin_unlock(&sb->s_inode_list_lock); >> + iput(old_inode); >> + >> + fi = get_fuse_inode(inode); >> + spin_lock(&fi->lock); >> + fi->attr_version = atomic64_inc_return(&fm->fc->attr_version); >> + spin_unlock(&fi->lock); >> + fuse_invalidate_attr(inode); >> + forget_all_cached_acls(inode); >> + >> + old_inode = inode; >> + cond_resched(); >> + spin_lock(&sb->s_inode_list_lock); >> + } >> + spin_unlock(&sb->s_inode_list_lock); >> + iput(old_inode); >> + >> + shrink_dcache_sb(sb); >> + >> + return 0; >> +} > > Just a suggestion, assuming Daves patch gets merged, maybe you coud move > the actual action into into a sub function? Makes it better visible > what is actually does and would then make it easier to move the iteration > part to the generic approach? Good point, I can created a helper function for that. It may eventually be reused if Dave's patchset moves forward. Thanks for the suggestion. Cheers, -- Luís > Alternatively, maybe updates Daves patch and add fuse on top of it? Dave? > > > Thanks, > Bernd > >
