On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 02:06:51AM +0000, [email protected] wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 07:18:17PM +0900, Misono Tomohiro wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > This is a second version of xattr fix for virtiofsd. > > > I included ACL fix (which introduces new option posix_acl) in this > > > version too as ACL mostly depends on xattr. > > > > > > I run xfstests with XFS backend using "-o xattr -o posix_acl" option > > > and only new failure is generic/375 which checks if sgid bit is > > > cleared after setfacl. I'll try to investigate it. > > > > > > change in v1 -> v2 > > > - rebased to current dev branch > > > > > > - Always chdir for xattr (1st patch) > > > In v1, I keep current implementation for regular file/dir since it > > > show better performance in my environment. But I notice opening file > > > for xattr causes seek sanity test fails (xfstest generic/285, 436). > > > > > > I'm not sure what is the fundamental problem here but I believe > > > performance can be improved by introducing some caching mechanism > > > in general. > > > > Hi Misono, > > > > How much is performance degradation due to fchdir(). If it is significant, > > then I will be inclined to keep original code for dir/file > > till some other mechanism is introduced to offset the perofrmance loss. > > Please refer this replay: > https://www.redhat.com/archives/virtio-fs/2020-January/msg00063.html
As per your email, regression due to fchdir() seems to be in the range of 5% to 10%. It is not trivial, IMO. May be its a good idea to keep original logic and use fchdir() only when need be. Thanks Vivek _______________________________________________ Virtio-fs mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/virtio-fs
