On Wed 08-05-19 19:09:56, Amir Goldstein wrote:
On Tue, May 7, 2019 at 10:12 PM Amir Goldstein
<amir73il(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, I much prefer this solution myself and I will follow up with it,
> but it would not be honest to suggest said solution as a stable fix
> to the performance regression that was introduced in v5.1.
> I think is it better if you choose between lesser evil:
> v1 with ifdef CONFIG_FSNOTIFY to fix build issue
> v2 as subtle as it is
> OR another obviously safe stable fix that you can think of
>
> The change of cleansing d_delete() from fsnotify_nameremove()
> requires more research and is anyway not stable tree material -
> if not for the level of complexity, then because all the users of
> FS_DELETE from pseudo and clustered filesystems need more time
> to find regressions (we do not have test coverage for those in LTP).
>
Something like this:
https://github.com/amir73il/linux/commits/fsnotify_nameremove
Only partially tested. Obviously haven't tested all callers.
Not quite. I'd add the fsnotify_nameremove() call also to simple_rmdir()
and simple_unlink(). That takes care of:
arch/s390/hypfs/inode.c, drivers/infiniband/hw/qib/qib_fs.c,
fs/configfs/dir.c, fs/debugfs/inode.c, fs/tracefs/inode.c,
net/sunrpc/rpc_pipe.c
So you're left only with:
drivers/usb/gadget/function/f_fs.c, fs/btrfs/ioctl.c, fs/devpts/inode.c,
fs/reiserfs/xattr.c
Out of these drivers/usb/gadget/function/f_fs.c and fs/reiserfs/xattr.c
actually also don't want the notifications to be generated. They don't
generate events on file creation AFAICS and at least in case of reiserfs I
know that xattrs are handled in "hidden" system files so notification does
not make any sense. So we are left with exactly *two* places that need
explicit fsnotify_nameremove() call. Since both these callers already take
care of calling fsnotify_create() I think that having explicit
fsnotify_nameremove() calls there is clearer than the current state.
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack(a)suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR