Re: [PATCH] sysctl: Add a feature to drop caches selectively

["Lukáš Czerner" <lczerner@redhat.com>]

On Thu, 26 Jun 2014, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:

> Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 14:31:03 +0300
> From: Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@gmail.com>
> To: Bernd Schubert <bernd.schubert@itwm.fraunhofer.de>
> Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>, Thomas Knauth <thomas.knauth@gmx.de>,
>     David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
>     Maksym Planeta <mcsim.planeta@gmail.com>,
>     Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
>     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] sysctl: Add a feature to drop caches selectively
> 
> On Thu, 2014-06-26 at 12:36 +0200, Bernd Schubert wrote:
> > On 06/26/2014 08:13 AM, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2014-06-26 at 11:06 +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > >> Your particular use case can be handled by directing your benchmark
> > >> at a filesystem mount point and unmounting the filesystem in between
> > >> benchmark runs. There is no ned to adding kernel functionality for
> > >> somethign that can be so easily acheived by other means, especially
> > >> in benchmark environments where *everything* is tightly controlled.
> > >
> > > If I was a benchmark writer, I would not be willing running it as root
> > > to be able to mount/unmount, I would not be willing to require the
> > > customer creating special dedicated partitions for the benchmark,
> > > because this is too user-unfriendly. Or do I make incorrect assumptions?
> > 
> > But why a sysctl then? And also don't see a point for that at all, why 
> > can't the benchmark use posix_fadvise(POSIX_FADV_DONTNEED)?
> 
> The latter question was answered - people want a way to drop caches for
> a file. They need a method which guarantees that the caches are dropped.
> They do not need an advisory method which does not give any guarantees.
> 
> As for the first question - this was what I was also asking too, but
> without suggesting alternatives. I challenged the authors with the
> following:
> 
> 1. Why the interface would only allow the super user dropping the
> caches? How about allowing the file owner or, generally speaking, the
> person who is allowed to modify the file, drop the caches?
> 
> I alluded that this may be doable with an fd-based interface.
> 
> 2. What about symlinks? Can I have a choice whether I drop caches
> (struct inode, I suppose) for the symlink itself or for the destination
> file? Again, fd-based interface would probably naturally allow for this.
> 
> 3. What about leaving some room for future extensions? E.g., someone may
> want to drop only part of a file in the future, who knows. Can we invent
> an interface which would allow to be extended in the future, without
> breaking older software?
> 
> My intention was to encourage the submitter to take some time and come
> back with deeper analysis.
> 
> And finally, and most importantly, Dave stated that any per-file cache
> dropping interface is unlikely going to be accepted at all, because
> there is mount/unmount.
> 
> So far this is the mane concern the submitter should address.
> 
> But I just answered that what Dave suggested is probably not the nicest
> way to do this from the user-space perspective, because it requires
> superuser privileges, and probably a separate "benchmark-only"
> partition.

I think that Dave is right in that if it's just for a "benchmarking"
purposes, then there is no need for a new special interface for
dropping caches. There is mount/umount and drop_caches which should
be more than enough for any benchmark. And while it's true that
you'd likely need superuser privileges for mount/umount, the same is
true about drop_caches, isn't it ?

> 
> So if the authors want to sell this new interface (in whatever form) to
> the kernel community, they should start with providing a solid use-case,
> with some more details, explore alternatives and show how the
> alternatives do not work for them.

Yes please, let's see some solid use-case for this.

-Lukas