From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/11] vfs: More precise tests in d_invalidate
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2014 17:22:41 -0800
Message-ID: <878utb3l7i.fsf@xmission.com>
References: <CAJfpegsxgnSRUW-E5HM3uT5QfGyUtn_v=i4Ppkkkutp34287AA@mail.gmail.com>
	<87a9kkax0j.fsf@xmission.com>
	<CAJfpeguv+7giYNpAuXE9Ja_9BEwB0-fZBVgRSeVqpzSXgQYZ6Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<8761v7h2pt.fsf@tw-ebiederman.twitter.com>
	<CAJfpegtT7y-1HhbEVAMKkdQugTG_w7G_epGtQHGvQLpcZB5FVA@mail.gmail.com>
	<87li281wx6.fsf_-_@xmission.com> <87ob28kqks.fsf_-_@xmission.com>
	<87bny8kqik.fsf_-_@xmission.com>
	<CA+55aFz6feRh9+U7OY6C4CfNe68CqQZARCf_J9deJdsUUG_ryg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+55aFzfa3=ukGq=XJbxj-xqud32DvbF7AcroBKL6-GY32or7Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<87a9ds55av.fsf@xmission.com>
	<CA+55aFyQntJjtVDJ1BsWGaPA5YY96ZjWJSxz-unjWU-RaQiFjw@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Cc: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>,
	Linux-Fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
	Rob Landley <rob@landley.net>,
	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
	Karel Zak <kzak@redhat.com>,
	"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Return-path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from out03.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.233]:34100 "EHLO
	out03.mta.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1752586AbaBPBWy (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Sat, 15 Feb 2014 20:22:54 -0500
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFyQntJjtVDJ1BsWGaPA5YY96ZjWJSxz-unjWU-RaQiFjw@mail.gmail.com>
	(Linus Torvalds's message of "Sat, 15 Feb 2014 16:03:53 -0800")
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>

Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> writes:

> On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 3:23 PM, Eric W. Biederman
> <ebiederm@xmission.com> wrote:
>>
>> Except that today d_invalidate drops the dcache lock and
>> calls shrink_dcache_parent.  Which gets you into exactly the same
>> complex "walk parents and check all siblings" code.
>
> Hmm. It only does that for directories that have sub-entries, though.
>
> I think you may care just about directories (because that's what your
> series is about), but d_invalidate() is used for other cases too,
> notably d_revalidate() (ie things like stale NFS lookups of normal
> files).
>
> That said, I'll have to think about this more. If d_subdir is empty, I
> guess d_walk() will be fairly cheap. It's very different, but maybe
> not as disastrous as I thought.

Thank you for taking the time to look.

It is also very true that I have been mostly focusing on the semantics
and correctness rather than on the performance of these changes.

I did keep a weather eye on the performance impact of these changes
though and as long as we can stand a slow down in the rare case where
mount points are present my changes should be fine.

Eric