On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 at 22:42, Jim Harris <jihar...@nvidia.com> wrote: > > > > > On Aug 20, 2025, at 1:55 AM, Miklos Szeredi <mik...@szeredi.hu> wrote:
> > FUSE_NOTIFY_INVAL_ENTRY with FUSE_EXPIRE_ONLY will do something like > > your desired FUSE_NOTIFY_DROP_ENTRY operation, at least on virtiofs > > (fc->delete_stale is on). I notice there's a fuse_dir_changed() call > > regardless of FUSE_EXPIRE_ONLY, which is not appropriate for the drop > > case, this can probably be moved inside the !FUSE_EXPIRE_ONLY branch. > > Thanks for the clarification. > > For that extra fuse_dir_changed() call - is this a required fix for > correctness or just an optimization to avoid unnecessarily invalidating the > parent directory’s attributes? You see it correctly, it would be an optimization. > > The other question is whether something more efficient should be > > added. E.g. FUSE_NOTIFY_SHRINK_LOOKUP_CACHE with a num_drop argument > > that tells fuse to try to drop this many unused entries? > > Absolutely something like this would be more efficient. Using > FUSE_NOTIFY_INVAL_ENTRY requires saving filenames which isn’t ideal. Okay, I suspect an interface that supplies an array of nodeid's would be best, as it would give control to the filesystem which inodes it wants to give up, but would allow batching the operation and would not require supplying the name. Will work on this. Thanks, Miklos
