Re: [PATCH RESEND V12 4/8] fuse: Passthrough initialization and release

[Amir Goldstein]

> I have an ugly patch which uses IDR as Miklos asked, but unfortunately
> I'm facing some performance issues due to the locking mechanisms to keep
> guarantee the RCU consistency. I can post the new patch set as an RFC
> soon for the community to take a look.
> At a glance what happens is:
> - the IDR, one for each fuse_conn, contains pointers to "struct
>   fuse_passthrough" containing:
>   - fuse_file *: which is using passthrough,
>   - file *: native file system file target,
>   - cred of the FUSE server,
> - ioctl(PASSTHROUGH_OPEN): updates IDR, requires spinlock:
>   - kmalloc(fuse_passthrough), update file and cred,
>   - ID = idr_alloc(),
>   - return ID,
> - fuse_open reply from FUSE server with passthrough ID: updates IDR,
>   requires spinlock:
>   - pt = idr_find(ID),
>   - update fuse_file with the current fuse_file,
>   - update fuse_file->passthrough_id = ID,
>   - idr_replace(),
> - read/write/mmap: lock-free IDR read:
>   - idr_find(fuse_file::passthrough_id),
>   - forward request to lower file system as for the current FUSE
>     passthrough patches.
> - ioctl(PASSTHROUGH_CLOSE): updates IDR, requires spinlock:
>   - idr_remove();
>   - call_rcu(): tell possible open fuse_file user that the ID is no more
>     valid and kfree() the allocated struct;
> - close(fuse_file): updates IDR, requires spinlock:
>   - ID = fuse_file::passthrough_id
>   - idr_find(ID),
>   - fuse_passthrough::fuse_file = NULL,
>   - idr_replace().
>
> This would be fine if passthrough is activated for a few, big files,
> where the passthrough overhead is dominated by the direct access
> benefits, but if passthrough is enabled for many small files which just
> do one or two read/writes (as what I did for my benchmark of total build
> time for the kernel, where I was passing-through every opened file), the
> overhead becomes a real issue.
>
> If you have any thoughts on how to make this simpler, I'm absolutely
> open to fix this.
>

This IDR namespace usually serves a single process. Right?
It sounds a bit more like a file table, more specifically, like io_file_table.
I may be way off, but this sounds a bit like IORING_REGISTER_FILES.
Is there anything that can be learned from this UAPI?
Maybe even reuse of some of the io_uring file register code?

Thanks,
Amir.