On Thu, Sep 04 2025, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > On Thu, 4 Sept 2025 at 16:11, Luis Henriques <luis@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On Thu, Sep 04 2025, Miklos Szeredi wrote: >> >> > On Thu, 28 Aug 2025 at 18:30, Luis Henriques <luis@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >> >> With the infrastructure introduced to periodically invalidate expired >> >> dentries, it is now possible to add an extra work queue to invalidate >> >> dentries when an epoch is incremented. This work queue will only be >> >> triggered when the 'inval_wq' parameter is set. >> >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Luis Henriques <luis@xxxxxxxxxx> >> >> --- >> >> fs/fuse/dev.c | 7 ++++--- >> >> fs/fuse/dir.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> >> fs/fuse/fuse_i.h | 4 ++++ >> >> fs/fuse/inode.c | 41 ++++++++++++++++++++++------------------- >> >> 4 files changed, 64 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-) >> >> >> >> diff --git a/fs/fuse/dev.c b/fs/fuse/dev.c >> >> index e80cd8f2c049..48c5c01c3e5b 100644 >> >> --- a/fs/fuse/dev.c >> >> +++ b/fs/fuse/dev.c >> >> @@ -2033,13 +2033,14 @@ static int fuse_notify_resend(struct fuse_conn *fc) >> >> >> >> /* >> >> * Increments the fuse connection epoch. This will result of dentries from >> >> - * previous epochs to be invalidated. >> >> - * >> >> - * XXX optimization: add call to shrink_dcache_sb()? >> > >> > I guess it wouldn't hurt. Definitely simpler, so I'd opt for this. >> >> So, your suggesting to have the work queue simply calling this instead of >> walking through the dentries? (Or even *not* having a work queue at all?) > > I think doing in in a work queue is useful, since walking the tree > might take a significant amount of time. > > Not having to do the walk manually is definitely a simplification. > It might throw out dentries that got looked up since the last epoch, > but it's probably not a big loss in terms of performance. OK, so that definitely makes things simpler for v6. Thanks! Cheers, -- Luís
