From: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com> To: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>, John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca> Subject: Re: Lease semantic proposal Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2019 14:01:57 -0700 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20191001210156.GB5500@iweiny-DESK2.sc.intel.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20190930084233.GO16973@dread.disaster.area> On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 06:42:33PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 04:46:03PM -0700, Ira Weiny wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 08:26:20AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > Hence, AFIACT, the above definition of a F_RDLCK|F_LAYOUT lease > > > doesn't appear to be compatible with the semantics required by > > > existing users of layout leases. > > > > I disagree. Other than the addition of F_UNBREAK, I think this is consistent > > with what is currently implemented. Also, by exporting all this to user space > > we can now write tests for it independent of the RDMA pinning. > > The current usage of F_RDLCK | F_LAYOUT by the pNFS code allows > layout changes to occur to the file while the layout lease is held. This was not my understanding. > IOWs, your definition of F_RDLCK | F_LAYOUT not being allowed > to change the is in direct contradition to existing users. > > I've said this several times over the past few months now: shared > layout leases must allow layout modifications to be made. I don't understand what the point of having a layout lease is then? > > Only > allowing an exclusive layout lease to modify the layout rules out > many potential use cases for direct data placement and p2p DMA > applications, How? I think that having a typical design pattern of multiple readers and only a single writer would actually make all these use cases easier. > not to mention conflicts with the existing pNFS usage. I apologize for not understanding this. My reading of the code is that layout changes require the read layout to be broken prior to proceeding. The break layout code does this by creating a F_WRLCK of type FL_LAYOUT which conflicts with the F_RDLCK of type FL_LAYOUT... int __break_lease(struct inode *inode, unsigned int mode, unsigned int type) { ... struct file_lock *new_fl, *fl, *tmp; ... new_fl = lease_alloc(NULL, want_write ? F_WRLCK : F_RDLCK, 0); if (IS_ERR(new_fl)) return PTR_ERR(new_fl); new_fl->fl_flags = type; ... list_for_each_entry_safe(fl, tmp, &ctx->flc_lease, fl_list) { if (!leases_conflict(fl, new_fl)) continue; ... } type == FL_LAYOUT from the call here. static inline int break_layout(struct inode *inode, bool wait) { smp_mb(); if (inode->i_flctx && !list_empty_careful(&inode->i_flctx->flc_lease)) return __break_lease(inode, wait ? O_WRONLY : O_WRONLY | O_NONBLOCK, FL_LAYOUT); return 0; } Also, I don't see any code which limits the number of read layout holders which can be present and all of them will be revoked by the above code. What am I missing? Ira _______________________________________________ Linux-nvdimm mailing list -- linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org To unsubscribe send an email to linux-nvdimm-leave@lists.01.org
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com> To: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>, John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca> Subject: Re: Lease semantic proposal Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2019 14:01:57 -0700 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20191001210156.GB5500@iweiny-DESK2.sc.intel.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20190930084233.GO16973@dread.disaster.area> On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 06:42:33PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 04:46:03PM -0700, Ira Weiny wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 08:26:20AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > Hence, AFIACT, the above definition of a F_RDLCK|F_LAYOUT lease > > > doesn't appear to be compatible with the semantics required by > > > existing users of layout leases. > > > > I disagree. Other than the addition of F_UNBREAK, I think this is consistent > > with what is currently implemented. Also, by exporting all this to user space > > we can now write tests for it independent of the RDMA pinning. > > The current usage of F_RDLCK | F_LAYOUT by the pNFS code allows > layout changes to occur to the file while the layout lease is held. This was not my understanding. > IOWs, your definition of F_RDLCK | F_LAYOUT not being allowed > to change the is in direct contradition to existing users. > > I've said this several times over the past few months now: shared > layout leases must allow layout modifications to be made. I don't understand what the point of having a layout lease is then? > > Only > allowing an exclusive layout lease to modify the layout rules out > many potential use cases for direct data placement and p2p DMA > applications, How? I think that having a typical design pattern of multiple readers and only a single writer would actually make all these use cases easier. > not to mention conflicts with the existing pNFS usage. I apologize for not understanding this. My reading of the code is that layout changes require the read layout to be broken prior to proceeding. The break layout code does this by creating a F_WRLCK of type FL_LAYOUT which conflicts with the F_RDLCK of type FL_LAYOUT... int __break_lease(struct inode *inode, unsigned int mode, unsigned int type) { ... struct file_lock *new_fl, *fl, *tmp; ... new_fl = lease_alloc(NULL, want_write ? F_WRLCK : F_RDLCK, 0); if (IS_ERR(new_fl)) return PTR_ERR(new_fl); new_fl->fl_flags = type; ... list_for_each_entry_safe(fl, tmp, &ctx->flc_lease, fl_list) { if (!leases_conflict(fl, new_fl)) continue; ... } type == FL_LAYOUT from the call here. static inline int break_layout(struct inode *inode, bool wait) { smp_mb(); if (inode->i_flctx && !list_empty_careful(&inode->i_flctx->flc_lease)) return __break_lease(inode, wait ? O_WRONLY : O_WRONLY | O_NONBLOCK, FL_LAYOUT); return 0; } Also, I don't see any code which limits the number of read layout holders which can be present and all of them will be revoked by the above code. What am I missing? Ira
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-10-01 21:02 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 44+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2019-09-23 19:08 Lease semantic proposal Ira Weiny 2019-09-23 19:08 ` Ira Weiny 2019-09-23 20:17 ` Jeff Layton 2019-09-23 20:17 ` Jeff Layton 2019-09-23 20:17 ` Jeff Layton 2019-10-01 18:17 ` Ira Weiny 2019-10-01 18:17 ` Ira Weiny 2019-10-02 12:28 ` Jeff Layton 2019-10-02 12:28 ` Jeff Layton 2019-10-02 12:28 ` Jeff Layton 2019-10-02 19:27 ` J. Bruce Fields 2019-10-02 19:27 ` J. Bruce Fields 2019-10-02 20:35 ` Jeff Layton 2019-10-02 20:35 ` Jeff Layton 2019-10-02 20:35 ` Jeff Layton 2019-10-03 8:43 ` Jan Kara 2019-10-03 8:43 ` Jan Kara 2019-10-03 15:37 ` J. Bruce Fields 2019-10-03 15:37 ` J. Bruce Fields 2020-01-21 0:56 ` Steve French 2020-01-21 0:56 ` Steve French 2020-01-21 0:56 ` Steve French 2019-10-03 9:01 ` Jan Kara 2019-10-03 9:01 ` Jan Kara 2019-10-03 17:05 ` Ira Weiny 2019-10-03 17:05 ` Ira Weiny 2019-09-23 22:26 ` Dave Chinner 2019-09-23 22:26 ` Dave Chinner 2019-09-25 23:46 ` Ira Weiny 2019-09-25 23:46 ` Ira Weiny 2019-09-26 11:29 ` Jeff Layton 2019-09-26 11:29 ` Jeff Layton 2019-09-26 11:29 ` Jeff Layton 2019-09-30 8:42 ` Dave Chinner 2019-09-30 8:42 ` Dave Chinner 2019-10-01 21:01 ` Ira Weiny [this message] 2019-10-01 21:01 ` Ira Weiny 2019-10-02 13:07 ` Dan Williams 2019-10-02 13:07 ` Dan Williams 2019-10-02 13:07 ` Dan Williams 2019-10-10 10:39 ` Dave Chinner 2019-10-10 10:39 ` Dave Chinner 2019-10-04 7:51 ` Jan Kara 2019-10-04 7:51 ` Jan Kara
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=20191001210156.GB5500@iweiny-DESK2.sc.intel.com \ --to=ira.weiny@intel.com \ --cc=david@fromorbit.com \ --cc=jack@suse.cz \ --cc=jgg@ziepe.ca \ --cc=jhubbard@nvidia.com \ --cc=jlayton@kernel.org \ --cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \ --cc=linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org \ --cc=linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=tytso@mit.edu \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.