Re: [PATCH 3/6] fuse: wait for end of IO on release

[Maxim Patlasov]

On 08/22/2014 06:00 PM, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 6:08 PM, Maxim Patlasov <MPatlasov@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > There are two types of I/O activity that can be "in progress" at the time
> > of fuse_release() execution: asynchronous read-ahead and write-back. The
> > patch ensures that they are completed before fuse_release_common sends
> > FUSE_RELEASE to userspace.
> >
> > So far as fuse_release() waits for end of async I/O, its callbacks
> > (fuse_readpages_end and fuse_writepage_finish) calling fuse_file_put cannot
> > be the last holders of fuse file anymore. To emphasize the fact, the patch
> > replaces fuse_file_put with __fuse_file_put there.
> 1) spinlock around __fuse_file_put() is unnecessary,
> wake_up/wait_event will provide the necessary synchronization.
Yes, I agree.

> 2) can't we always wait for I/O and just make the actual RELEASE
> message sync or async based on the flag?
> 3) and can't we merge the fuseblk case into this as well?

I think this is doable, but the same argument that Anand suggested for 
doing sync release selectively:

> In a real world scenario you may want to perform synchronous release 
> selectively. As such performance over lots of small files is generally 
> slow because of context switches, and a synchronous release adds an 
> extra switch.

is applicable here: if an application opened a file read-only and read a 
block initiating read-ahead, it's not obvious why the app doing close(2) 
should always wait for the end of that read-ahead. For some fs it's 
desirable, for others is not. Let's fuse daemon decide which behaviour 
is preferable.

Thanks,
Maxim
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/