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? 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? Thanks, Bernd
