From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: "Ira Weiny" <ira.weiny@intel.com>, "Jan Kara" <jack@suse.cz>,
"Dan Williams" <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>,
"Jeff Layton" <jlayton@kernel.org>,
linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org,
"Andrew Morton" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
"John Hubbard" <jhubbard@nvidia.com>,
"Jérôme Glisse" <jglisse@redhat.com>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org,
linux-mm@kvack.org, "Jason Gunthorpe" <jgg@ziepe.ca>,
linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 00/10] RDMA/FS DAX truncate proposal
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2019 03:47:43 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190613104743.GH32656@bombadil.infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190613043649.GJ14363@dread.disaster.area>
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 02:36:49PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 08:23:20PM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 10:25:55AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 05:37:53AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > > That's rather different from the normal meaning of 'exclusive' in the
> > > > context of locks, which is "only one user can have access to this at
> > > > a time".
> > >
> > > Layout leases are not locks, they are a user access policy object.
> > > It is the process/fd which holds the lease and it's the process/fd
> > > that is granted exclusive access. This is exactly the same semantic
> > > as O_EXCL provides for granting exclusive access to a block device
> > > via open(), yes?
> >
> > This isn't my understanding of how RDMA wants this to work, so we should
> > probably clear that up before we get too far down deciding what name to
> > give it.
> >
> > For the RDMA usage case, it is entirely possible that both process A
> > and process B which don't know about each other want to perform RDMA to
> > file F. So there will be two layout leases active on this file at the
> > same time. It's fine for IOs to simultaneously be active to both leases.
>
> Yes, it is.
>
> > But if the filesystem wants to move blocks around, it has to break
> > both leases.
>
> No, the _lease layer_ needs to break both leases when the filesystem
> calls break_layout().
That's a distinction without a difference as far as userspace is
concerned. If process A asks for an exclusive lease (and gets it),
then process B asks for an exclusive lease (and gets it), that lease
isn't exclusive! It's shared.
I think the example you give of O_EXCL is more of a historical accident.
It's a relatively recent Linuxism that O_EXCL on a block device means
"this block device is not part of a filesystem", and I don't think
most userspace programmers are aware of what it means when not paired
with O_CREAT.
> > If Process C tries to do a write to file F without a lease, there's no
> > problem, unless a side-effect of the write would be to change the block
> > mapping,
>
> That's a side effect we cannot predict ahead of time. But it's
> also _completely irrelevant_ to the layout lease layer API and
> implementation.(*)
It's irrelevant to the naming, but you brought it up as part of the
semantics.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-06-13 10:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 76+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-06-06 1:45 [PATCH RFC 00/10] RDMA/FS DAX truncate proposal ira.weiny
2019-06-06 1:45 ` [PATCH RFC 01/10] fs/locks: Add trace_leases_conflict ira.weiny
2019-06-09 12:52 ` Jeff Layton
2019-06-06 1:45 ` [PATCH RFC 02/10] fs/locks: Export F_LAYOUT lease to user space ira.weiny
2019-06-09 13:00 ` Jeff Layton
2019-06-11 21:38 ` Ira Weiny
2019-06-12 9:46 ` Jan Kara
2019-06-06 1:45 ` [PATCH RFC 03/10] mm/gup: Pass flags down to __gup_device_huge* calls ira.weiny
2019-06-06 6:18 ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-06-06 16:10 ` Ira Weiny
2019-06-06 1:45 ` [PATCH RFC 04/10] mm/gup: Ensure F_LAYOUT lease is held prior to GUP'ing pages ira.weiny
2019-06-06 1:45 ` [PATCH RFC 05/10] fs/ext4: Teach ext4 to break layout leases ira.weiny
2019-06-06 1:45 ` [PATCH RFC 06/10] fs/ext4: Teach dax_layout_busy_page() to operate on a sub-range ira.weiny
2019-06-06 1:45 ` [PATCH RFC 07/10] fs/ext4: Fail truncate if pages are GUP pinned ira.weiny
2019-06-06 10:58 ` Jan Kara
2019-06-06 16:17 ` Ira Weiny
2019-06-06 1:45 ` [PATCH RFC 08/10] fs/xfs: Teach xfs to use new dax_layout_busy_page() ira.weiny
2019-06-06 1:45 ` [PATCH RFC 09/10] fs/xfs: Fail truncate if pages are GUP pinned ira.weiny
2019-06-06 1:45 ` [PATCH RFC 10/10] mm/gup: Remove FOLL_LONGTERM DAX exclusion ira.weiny
2019-06-06 5:52 ` [PATCH RFC 00/10] RDMA/FS DAX truncate proposal John Hubbard
2019-06-06 17:11 ` Ira Weiny
2019-06-06 19:46 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-06-06 10:42 ` Jan Kara
2019-06-06 15:35 ` Dan Williams
2019-06-06 19:51 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-06-06 22:22 ` Ira Weiny
2019-06-07 10:36 ` Jan Kara
2019-06-07 12:17 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-06-07 14:52 ` Ira Weiny
2019-06-07 15:10 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-06-12 10:29 ` Jan Kara
2019-06-12 11:47 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-06-12 12:09 ` Jan Kara
2019-06-12 18:41 ` Dan Williams
2019-06-13 7:17 ` Jan Kara
2019-06-12 19:14 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-06-12 22:13 ` Ira Weiny
2019-06-12 22:54 ` Dan Williams
2019-06-12 23:33 ` Ira Weiny
2019-06-13 1:14 ` Dan Williams
2019-06-13 15:13 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-06-13 16:25 ` Dan Williams
2019-06-13 17:18 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-06-13 16:53 ` Dan Williams
2019-06-13 15:12 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-06-13 7:53 ` Jan Kara
2019-06-12 18:49 ` Dan Williams
2019-06-13 7:43 ` Jan Kara
2019-06-06 22:03 ` Ira Weiny
2019-06-06 22:26 ` Ira Weiny
2019-06-06 22:28 ` Dave Chinner
2019-06-07 11:04 ` Jan Kara
2019-06-07 18:25 ` Ira Weiny
2019-06-07 18:50 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-06-08 0:10 ` Dave Chinner
2019-06-09 1:29 ` Ira Weiny
2019-06-12 12:37 ` Matthew Wilcox
2019-06-12 23:30 ` Ira Weiny
2019-06-13 0:55 ` Dave Chinner
2019-06-13 20:34 ` Ira Weiny
2019-06-14 3:42 ` Dave Chinner
2019-06-13 0:25 ` Dave Chinner
2019-06-13 3:23 ` Matthew Wilcox
2019-06-13 4:36 ` Dave Chinner
2019-06-13 10:47 ` Matthew Wilcox [this message]
2019-06-13 15:29 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-06-13 15:27 ` Matthew Wilcox
2019-06-13 21:13 ` Ira Weiny
2019-06-13 23:45 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-06-14 0:00 ` Ira Weiny
2019-06-14 2:09 ` Dave Chinner
2019-06-14 2:31 ` Matthew Wilcox
2019-06-14 3:07 ` Dave Chinner
2019-06-20 14:52 ` Jan Kara
2019-06-13 20:34 ` Ira Weiny
2019-06-14 2:58 ` Dave Chinner
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=20190613104743.GH32656@bombadil.infradead.org \
--to=willy@infradead.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=ira.weiny@intel.com \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=jgg@ziepe.ca \
--cc=jglisse@redhat.com \
--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: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).