RE: [PATCH RFC] introduce ioctl to completely invalidate page cache

[Thanos Makatos]

> > Trond also had a comment that if we extended the ioctl to work for all
> > inodes (not just blkdev) and allowed some additional flags of what
> > needs to be invalidated, the new ioctl would be also useful to NFS
> > userspace - see Trond's email at
> >
> > http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-fsdevel/msg78917.html
> >
> > and the following thread. I would prefer to cover that usecase when we
> > are introducing new invalidation ioctl. Have you considered that Thanos?
> 
> Sure, though I don't really know how to do it. I'll start by looking at the code
> flow when someone does " echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches", unless you
> already have a rough idea how to do that.

I realise I haven't clearly understood what the semantics of this new ioctl
should be.

My initial goal was to implement an ioctl that would _completely_ invalidate
the buffer cache of a block device when there is no file-system involved.
Unless I'm mistaken the patch I posted achieves this goal.

We now want to extend this patch to take care of cached metadata, which seems
to be of particular importance for NFS, and I suspect that this piece of
functionality will still be applicable to any kind of file-system, correct?

Do we want this new ioctl to do what "echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches" does
but on a more selective basis, which IIUC drops whatever can be dropped, but
may not drop everything? If so, then we should more precisely define this ioctl
as "drop *all* cached data and as much metadata you can, which may not be all
of them". If this is the case, would adding a call to drop_pagecache_sb() on
all super blocks whose .s_bdev equals the block device we're interested in
suffice?
--
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/