[re-sending -- for some reason I did a simple 'reply', not a 'reply-all'.] On Mon, Feb 10 2025, Bernd Schubert wrote: > On 2/10/25 10:48, 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 sb dcache. >> >> Signed-off-by: Luis Henriques <luis@xxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> Hi! >> >> As suggested by Bernd, this patch v2 simply adds an helper function that >> will make it easier to replace most of it's code by a call to function >> super_iter_inodes() when Dave Chinner's patch[1] eventually gets merged. >> >> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241002014017.3801899-3-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx >> >> fs/fuse/inode.c | 59 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> include/uapi/linux/fuse.h | 3 ++ >> 2 files changed, 62 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/fs/fuse/inode.c b/fs/fuse/inode.c >> index e9db2cb8c150..be51b53006d8 100644 >> --- a/fs/fuse/inode.c >> +++ b/fs/fuse/inode.c >> @@ -547,6 +547,62 @@ struct inode *fuse_ilookup(struct fuse_conn *fc, u64 nodeid, >> return NULL; >> } >> >> +static void inval_single_inode(struct inode *inode, struct fuse_conn *fc) >> +{ >> + struct fuse_inode *fi; >> + >> + fi = get_fuse_inode(inode); >> + spin_lock(&fi->lock); >> + fi->attr_version = atomic64_inc_return(&fc->attr_version); >> + spin_unlock(&fi->lock); >> + fuse_invalidate_attr(inode); >> + forget_all_cached_acls(inode); > > > Thank you, much easier to read. > > Could fuse_reverse_inval_inode() call into this? Yep, it could indeed. I'll do that in the next iteration, thanks! > What are the semantics > for invalidate_inode_pages2_range() in this case? Totally invalidate? > No page cache invalidation at all as right now? If so, why? So, if I change fuse_reverse_inval_inode() to use this help, it will still need to keep the call to invalidate_inode_pages2_range(). But in the new function fuse_reverse_inval_all(), I'm not doing it explicitly. Instead, that function calls into shrink_dcache_sb(). I *think* that by doing so the invalidation will eventually happen. Or am I wrong assuming that? Cheers, -- Luís
