From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Steve French (smfltc)" Subject: Re: linux-cifs-client Digest, Vol 70, Issue 25 Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 09:41:08 -0500 Message-ID: <4AC0CB04.9070502@us.ibm.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed To: linux-cifs-client@lists.samba.org, Jeff Layton , linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from e4.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.144]:37480 "EHLO e4.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751400AbZI1Omf (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Sep 2009 10:42:35 -0400 Received: from d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (d01relay04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.236]) by e4.ny.us.ibm.com (8.14.3/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n8SEZPQ4014557 for ; Mon, 28 Sep 2009 10:35:25 -0400 Received: from d01av04.pok.ibm.com (d01av04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.64]) by d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id n8SEgd3l178766 for ; Mon, 28 Sep 2009 10:42:39 -0400 Received: from d01av04.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av04.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id n8SEgal6027434 for ; Mon, 28 Sep 2009 10:42:38 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: >> This patchset is still preliminary and is just an RFC... >> >> First, some background. When I was at Connectathon this year, Trond >> mentioned an interesting idea to me. He said (paraphrasing): >> >> "Why doesn't CIFS just use the RPC layer for transport? It's very >> efficient at shoveling bits out onto the wire. You'd just need to >> abstract out the XDR/RPC specific bits." >> >> My first reaction is that if you abstract out XDR/RPC specific parts of SunRPC it isn't SunRPC, just a scheduler on top of tcp (not a bad thing in theory). Pulling out the two key pieces from SunRPC: - asynchronous event handling and scheduling - upcall for credentials could be useful, but does add a lot of complexity. If there is a way to use just the async scheduling (and perhaps upcall) out of SunRPC, that part sounds fine as long as it can skip the encoding/decoding and just pass in a raw kvec containing the SMB header and data. >> >> CIFS in particular is also designed around synchronous ops, which >> seriously limits throughput. Retrofitting it for asynchronous operation >> will be adding even more kludges. >> There are only three operations that we can send asynchronous today, all of which require special case handling in the VFS already: - readpages - writepages - blocking locks (and also directory change notification which we and nfs don't do). I think the "slow_work" mechanism is probably sufficient for these cases already. >> works in our favor... >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Q: can we hook up cifs or smbfs to use this as a transport? >> >> A: Not trivially. CIFS in particular is not designed with each call >> having discrete encode and decode functions. They're sort of mashed >> We certainly don't want to move to an abstract encoding mechanism, especially for SMB2 where there is only one encoding of wire operations, and no duplicate requests due to 20 years of dialects. I can see an argument for abstract encoding for requests like SMB open, vs. SMB OpenX vs. SMB NTCreateX but this would be harder or to abstract and has to be done case by case anyway due to differences in field length, missing fields, different compensations. It is not like the simpler NFS case where encoding involves endian conversion etc. >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Q: could we use this as a transport layer for a smb2fs ? >> >> A: Yes, I think so. This particular prototype is build around SMB1, but >> SMB2 could be supported with only minor modifications. One of the >> reasons for sending this patchset now before I've built a filesystem on >> top of it is because I know that SMB2 work is in progress. I'd like to >> see it based around a more asynchronous transport model, or at least >> built with cleaner layering so that we can eventually bolt on a different >> transport layer if we so choose. >> Amost all the ops use "send_receive" already - so there is no need to change the code much above that if you want to experiment with changing the transport. I like the idea of the abtraction of async operations, and creating completion routines (and an async send abstraction) for readpages, writepages and directory change notification would make sense. but in both cifs and smb2, the 95% of the operations that must be synchronous in the VFS (open, lookup, unlink, create etc.) can already be hooked up to any transport as long as it can send a kvec contain fs data and return a response (like the "send_receive" and equivalent). The idea of doing abstract translation and encoding of SMB protocol frames does seem overengineered and probably would make it harder to read/understand the setup of certain complex request frames which are quite different from Samba to Windows. As another example, generalized, abstract SMB frame conversion isn't being done in Samba 3 for example, and with only 19 requests in SMB2 it makes even less sense. On the client, since we have control over which types of requests we send, our case is simpler than for the server for sending requests, but in response processing since we have to work around server bugs, xdr like decoding of SMB responses could get harder still. I like the idea of the way SunRPC keeps task information, and it may make it easier to carry credentials around (although I think using Dave Howell's key management code might be ok instead to access Winbind). I am not sure how easy it would be to tie SunRPC credential mapping to Winbind but that could probably be done. I like the async scheduling capability of SunRPC although I suspect that it is a factor in a number of the (nfs client) performance problems we have seen so may need more work. I don't like adding (in effect) an extra transport and "encoding layer" though to protocols (cifs and smb2). NFS since it is built on SunRPC on the wire, required such a layer, and it makes sense for NFS to layer the code, like their protocol, over SunRPC. CIFS and SMB2 don't require (or even allow) XDR translation, variable encodings, and SunRPC encapsulation so the idea of abstracting the encoding of something that has a single defined encoding seems wrong.