On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 06:36:37AM +0800, Liu Bo wrote:
> Hi Stefan,
>
> On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 09:22:24AM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 09:54:08AM +, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> > > v2:
> > > * Document empty virtqueue behavior for FUSE_NOTIFY_LOCK messages
> > >
> > > This patch series adds the notification queue to the VIRTIO specification.
> > > This new virtqueue carries device->driver FUSE notify messages. They are
> > > currently unused but will be necessary for file locking, which can block
> > > for an
> > > unbounded amount of time and therefore needs a asynchronous completion
> > > event
> > > instead of a request/response buffer that consumes space in the request
> > > virtqueue until the operation completes.
> > >
> > > Patch 1 corrects an oversight I noticed: the file system device was not
> > > added
> > > to the Conformance chapter.
> > >
> > > Stefan Hajnoczi (2):
> > > virtio-fs: add file system device to Conformance chapter
> > > virtio-fs: add notification queue
> > >
> > > conformance.tex | 23
> > > virtio-fs.tex | 71 ++---
> > > 2 files changed, 84 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> >
> > Reminder to anyone who needs the virtio-fs notification queue: please
> > review this series.
> >
>
> Besides using notification queue to provide posix lock support, I've
> also managed to invalidate dentry/inode's cache with notification
> queue, it worked well.
Thank you!
Are you using dentry/inode cache invalidation to reduce the number of
file descriptors that virtiofsd needs to hold open, or are you using it
because the file system is shared by multiple systems and you want to
stronger cache coherency?
Stefan
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
