On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 08:59:06AM -0800, Liu Bo wrote: > On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 08:53:15AM -0800, Liu Bo wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 03:30:58PM +0100, David Sterba wrote: > > > On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 03:16:15PM -0800, Liu Bo wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > I'd like to attend the LSF/MM conference this year. > > > > > > > > I think I can contribute to a few areas that are being discussed this year: > > > > - how to provide better information for the filesystem to optimize allocation. > > > > - power/failure tests > > > > - performance aspects, etc. > > > > > > > > Besides that, I'd like to talk about the following, > > > > - combining overlayfs with btrfs to properly fix overlayfs copy-up slowness. > > > > - fragmentation control in Copy-On-Write filesystems. (setting a reasonable > > > > large allocation unit and performing RMW, etc?) > > > > Since xfs is also going to have reflink, so xfs is also regarded as COW > > > > FS, having some generic ideas for this topic would help a lot. > > > > - mount individual subvolumes (in btrfs) with different selinux label, this > > > > will be useful in container senarios when btrfs being their storage driver. > > > > > > > > (I've finished the patch for the above selinux label support, but it can ends up > > > > with inode leak if it's not used in the container way, which is assuming the > > > > top subvolume is always being the last one to unmout.) > > > > > > Do you have the patchset so I can have a look? I've claimed the > > > per-subvolume mount properties in the past and have it almost working. > > > Supporting selinux labels seems to have some overlap, so I'm curious how > > > much code conflicts are there. > > > > There might be some conflicts since I'm using pseudo superblock for each > > subvolume in that case in order to support selinux label. > > I also changed docker's btrfs graphdriver code to mount a > subvolume/snapshot like what devicemapper does so that it can have > different selinux label for each container. > > To test it, we have to use "mount -osubvolid=AAA,nosharecache=AAA /disk /mnt" Thanks. Code-wise there are no conflicts but my implementation does not expect existence of the extra superblocks so it would not work together. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
