All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Olga Kornievskaia <aglo@umich.edu>
To: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@primarydata.com>,
	linux-nfs <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: commit 7c2dad99d6 "Don't let the ctime override attribute barriers"
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 15:47:53 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAN-5tyHEt93VxL2Ysikgn8iZ_auWEWGdGkZ94LMBOa62wHDWMA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)

I think that patch introduces a problem. Since the checking for the
change in ctime was removed by the commit it leads to (improper) cache
invalidation in NFSv3.

Test is write 10240bytes to the server then read it. Expectation is
not to see read on the wire. In the test the write is spread over
3rpcs.

On the 1nd reply
fattr->gencount=33 nfsi->gencount=32 generation_counter=35
On the 2nd reply
fattr->gencount=34 nfsi->gencount=36 generation_counter=36

In the code when processing 2nd reply,
nfs_post_op_update_inode_force_wcc_locked() calls into
nfs_inode_attrs_need_update() it determines that it doesn't need to
update them (even though the size and the time have changed). so it
doesn't call nfs_wcc_update_inode() so the inode->i_version doesn't
get set to the ctime that was received in the 2nd reply.

On the 3rd reply
fattr->gencount=37 nfsi->gencount=36 generation_counter=37

It leads to nfs_inode_attrs_need_update() returns 1 and in the
nfs_update_inode() the difference in the ctimes leads to invalidation.
fattr->gencount was update from nfs_writeback_update_node() ->
nfs_post_op_update_inode_force_wcc() calling nfs_fattr_set_barrier().

I'm not sure what appropriate values for "gencount" should have been.
But if the check for nfs_ctime_need_update() was still there in
nfs_inode_attrs_need_update() then the 2nd reply would have
appropriately updated the i_version and not lead to invalidation.

             reply	other threads:[~2016-03-29 19:47 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-03-29 19:47 Olga Kornievskaia [this message]
2016-03-30 21:02 ` commit 7c2dad99d6 "Don't let the ctime override attribute barriers" Olga Kornievskaia
2016-03-30 21:45   ` Trond Myklebust
2016-03-30 21:51     ` Olga Kornievskaia
2016-03-30 23:32       ` Trond Myklebust
2016-03-31 14:15         ` Olga Kornievskaia
2016-03-31 14:21           ` Trond Myklebust
2016-03-31 14:36             ` Olga Kornievskaia
2016-03-31 15:16               ` Trond Myklebust
2016-03-31 15:27                 ` Olga Kornievskaia
2016-04-01 19:38                   ` Olga Kornievskaia

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=CAN-5tyHEt93VxL2Ysikgn8iZ_auWEWGdGkZ94LMBOa62wHDWMA@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=aglo@umich.edu \
    --cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=trond.myklebust@primarydata.com \
    /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: link
Be 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.