lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Dec]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [UNIONFS] 00/42 Unionfs and related patches review
Date

Erez Zadok:
> (1) Cache coherency: by far, the biggest concern had been around cache
:::
> unionfs. The solution we have implemented is to compare the mtime/ctime of
> upper/lower objects during revalidation (esp. of dentries); and if the lower
> times are newer, we reconstruct the union object (drop the older objects,
> and re-lookup them). This time-based cache-coherency works well and is
:::

The resolution of mtime/ctime may be too low since some filesystems sets
them in unit of a second, which means you cannot detect the changes made
within a second.
I think it is better to use inotify for every directory while it
consumes a little more resources.
Additionally, if you implement vm_operations instead of
struggling along address_space_operations or VFS patches, in order to
share the mmap-ed memory pages between lower inode and unionfs inode,
then most of issues will be gone.
You can see this approach and how it is working in http://aufs.sf.net
(and get the source file from CVS).

But I am afraid the approach sharing memory pages will not be avaiable
for ecryptfs.


Junjiro Okajima


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-12-10 04:41    [W:0.271 / U:0.084 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site