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. Thanks, Miklos
