Re: [PATCH 3/3] ovl: redirect on rename-dir

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 12:08 PM, Konstantin Khlebnikov <koct9i@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 1:04 PM, Miklos Szeredi <miklos@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 10:58 AM, Konstantin Khlebnikov <koct9i@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> I've stumbled on somehow related problem - concurrent copy-ups are
>>> strictly serialized by rename locks.
>>> Obviously, file copying could be done in parallel: locks are required
>>> only for final rename.
>>> Because of that overlay slower that aufs for some workloads.
>>
>> Easy to fix: for each copy up create a separate subdir of "work".
>> Then the contention is only for the time of creating the subdir, which
>> is very short.
>
> Yeah, but lock_rename() also takes per-sb s_vfs_rename_mutex (kludge by Al Viro)
> I think proper synchronization for concurrent copy-up (for example
> round flag on ovl_entry) and  locking rename only for rename could be
> better.

Removing s_vfs_rename_mutex from copy-up path is something I have been
pondering about.
Assuming that I understand Al's comment above vfs_rename() correctly,
the sole purpose of per-sb serialization is to prevent loop creations.
However, how can one create a loop by moving a non-directory?
So it looks like at least for the non-dir copy up case, a much finer grained
lock is in order.

Anyway, it's on my todo list, as concurrent operation performance on overlayfs
is important to out use case.

Amir.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-unionfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Filesystems Devel]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux