From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:42763 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757235AbcCDR7j (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Mar 2016 12:59:39 -0500 Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2016 18:25:14 +0100 From: David Sterba To: Liu Bo Cc: lsf-pc@lists.linuxfoundation.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [LSF/MM ATTEND] Attendance request Message-ID: <20160304172514.GA30625@suse.cz> Reply-To: dsterba@suse.cz References: <20160228231615.GA29981@localhost.localdomain> <20160304143058.GJ29310@twin.jikos.cz> <20160304165310.GA14271@localhost.localdomain> <20160304165906.GB14271@localhost.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160304165906.GB14271@localhost.localdomain> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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.