linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
To: ira.weiny@intel.com, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>,
	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
	Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>, John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
	Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
	linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org,
	 linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	 linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 02/19] fs/locks: Add Exclusive flag to user Layout lease
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2019 10:15:06 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <fde2959db776616008fc5d31df700f5d7d899433.camel@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190809225833.6657-3-ira.weiny@intel.com>

On Fri, 2019-08-09 at 15:58 -0700, ira.weiny@intel.com wrote:
> From: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>
> 
> Add an exclusive lease flag which indicates that the layout mechanism
> can not be broken.
> 
> Exclusive layout leases allow the file system to know that pages may be
> GUP pined and that attempts to change the layout, ie truncate, should be
> failed.
> 
> A process which attempts to break it's own exclusive lease gets an
> EDEADLOCK return to help determine that this is likely a programming bug
> vs someone else holding a resource.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>
> ---
>  fs/locks.c                       | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++--
>  include/linux/fs.h               |  1 +
>  include/uapi/asm-generic/fcntl.h |  2 ++
>  3 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c
> index ad17c6ffca06..0c7359cdab92 100644
> --- a/fs/locks.c
> +++ b/fs/locks.c
> @@ -626,6 +626,8 @@ static int lease_init(struct file *filp, long type, unsigned int flags,
>  	fl->fl_flags = FL_LEASE;
>  	if (flags & FL_LAYOUT)
>  		fl->fl_flags |= FL_LAYOUT;
> +	if (flags & FL_EXCLUSIVE)
> +		fl->fl_flags |= FL_EXCLUSIVE;
>  	fl->fl_start = 0;
>  	fl->fl_end = OFFSET_MAX;
>  	fl->fl_ops = NULL;
> @@ -1619,6 +1621,14 @@ int __break_lease(struct inode *inode, unsigned int mode, unsigned int type)
>  	list_for_each_entry_safe(fl, tmp, &ctx->flc_lease, fl_list) {
>  		if (!leases_conflict(fl, new_fl))
>  			continue;
> +		if (fl->fl_flags & FL_EXCLUSIVE) {
> +			error = -ETXTBSY;
> +			if (new_fl->fl_pid == fl->fl_pid) {
> +				error = -EDEADLOCK;
> +				goto out;
> +			}
> +			continue;
> +		}
>  		if (want_write) {
>  			if (fl->fl_flags & FL_UNLOCK_PENDING)
>  				continue;
> @@ -1634,6 +1644,13 @@ int __break_lease(struct inode *inode, unsigned int mode, unsigned int type)
>  			locks_delete_lock_ctx(fl, &dispose);
>  	}
>  
> +	/* We differentiate between -EDEADLOCK and -ETXTBSY so the above loop
> +	 * continues with -ETXTBSY looking for a potential deadlock instead.
> +	 * If deadlock is not found go ahead and return -ETXTBSY.
> +	 */
> +	if (error == -ETXTBSY)
> +		goto out;
> +
>  	if (list_empty(&ctx->flc_lease))
>  		goto out;
>  
> @@ -2044,9 +2061,11 @@ static int do_fcntl_add_lease(unsigned int fd, struct file *filp, long arg)
>  	 * to revoke the lease in break_layout()  And this is done by using
>  	 * F_WRLCK in the break code.
>  	 */
> -	if (arg == F_LAYOUT) {
> +	if ((arg & F_LAYOUT) == F_LAYOUT) {
> +		if ((arg & F_EXCLUSIVE) == F_EXCLUSIVE)
> +			flags |= FL_EXCLUSIVE;
>  		arg = F_RDLCK;
> -		flags = FL_LAYOUT;
> +		flags |= FL_LAYOUT;
>  	}
>  
>  	fl = lease_alloc(filp, arg, flags);
> diff --git a/include/linux/fs.h b/include/linux/fs.h
> index dd60d5be9886..2e41ce547913 100644
> --- a/include/linux/fs.h
> +++ b/include/linux/fs.h
> @@ -1005,6 +1005,7 @@ static inline struct file *get_file(struct file *f)
>  #define FL_UNLOCK_PENDING	512 /* Lease is being broken */
>  #define FL_OFDLCK	1024	/* lock is "owned" by struct file */
>  #define FL_LAYOUT	2048	/* outstanding pNFS layout or user held pin */
> +#define FL_EXCLUSIVE	4096	/* Layout lease is exclusive */
>  
>  #define FL_CLOSE_POSIX (FL_POSIX | FL_CLOSE)
>  
> diff --git a/include/uapi/asm-generic/fcntl.h b/include/uapi/asm-generic/fcntl.h
> index baddd54f3031..88b175ceccbc 100644
> --- a/include/uapi/asm-generic/fcntl.h
> +++ b/include/uapi/asm-generic/fcntl.h
> @@ -176,6 +176,8 @@ struct f_owner_ex {
>  
>  #define F_LAYOUT	16      /* layout lease to allow longterm pins such as
>  				   RDMA */
> +#define F_EXCLUSIVE	32      /* layout lease is exclusive */
> +				/* FIXME or shoudl this be F_EXLCK??? */
>  
>  /* operations for bsd flock(), also used by the kernel implementation */
>  #define LOCK_SH		1	/* shared lock */

This interface just seems weird to me. The existing F_*LCK values aren't
really set up to be flags, but are enumerated values (even if there are
some gaps on some arches). For instance, on parisc and sparc:

/* for posix fcntl() and lockf() */
#define F_RDLCK         01
#define F_WRLCK         02
#define F_UNLCK         03

While your new flag values are well above these values, it's still a bit
sketchy to do what you're proposing from a cross-platform interface
standpoint.

I think this would be a lot cleaner if you weren't overloading the
F_SETLEASE command with new flags, and instead added new
F_SETLAYOUT/F_GETLAYOUT cmd values.

You'd then be free to define a new set of "arg" values for use with
layouts, and there's be a clear distinction interface-wise between
setting a layout and a lease.

-- 
Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>



  reply	other threads:[~2019-08-14 14:15 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 110+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-08-09 22:58 [RFC PATCH v2 00/19] RDMA/FS DAX truncate proposal V1,000,002 ;-) ira.weiny
2019-08-09 22:58 ` [RFC PATCH v2 01/19] fs/locks: Export F_LAYOUT lease to user space ira.weiny
2019-08-09 23:52   ` Dave Chinner
2019-08-12 17:36     ` Ira Weiny
2019-08-14  8:05       ` Dave Chinner
2019-08-14 11:21         ` Jeff Layton
2019-08-14 11:38           ` Dave Chinner
2019-08-09 22:58 ` [RFC PATCH v2 02/19] fs/locks: Add Exclusive flag to user Layout lease ira.weiny
2019-08-14 14:15   ` Jeff Layton [this message]
2019-08-14 21:56     ` Dave Chinner
2019-08-26 10:41       ` Jeff Layton
2019-08-29 23:34         ` Ira Weiny
2019-09-04 12:52           ` Jeff Layton
2019-09-04 23:12   ` John Hubbard
2019-08-09 22:58 ` [RFC PATCH v2 03/19] mm/gup: Pass flags down to __gup_device_huge* calls ira.weiny
2019-08-09 22:58 ` [RFC PATCH v2 04/19] mm/gup: Ensure F_LAYOUT lease is held prior to GUP'ing pages ira.weiny
2019-08-09 22:58 ` [RFC PATCH v2 05/19] fs/ext4: Teach ext4 to break layout leases ira.weiny
2019-08-09 22:58 ` [RFC PATCH v2 06/19] fs/ext4: Teach dax_layout_busy_page() to operate on a sub-range ira.weiny
2019-08-23 15:18   ` Vivek Goyal
2019-08-29 18:52     ` Ira Weiny
2019-08-09 22:58 ` [RFC PATCH v2 07/19] fs/xfs: Teach xfs to use new dax_layout_busy_page() ira.weiny
2019-08-09 23:30   ` Dave Chinner
2019-08-12 18:05     ` Ira Weiny
2019-08-14  8:04       ` Dave Chinner
2019-08-09 22:58 ` [RFC PATCH v2 08/19] fs/xfs: Fail truncate if page lease can't be broken ira.weiny
2019-08-09 23:22   ` Dave Chinner
2019-08-12 18:08     ` Ira Weiny
2019-08-09 22:58 ` [RFC PATCH v2 09/19] mm/gup: Introduce vaddr_pin structure ira.weiny
2019-08-10  0:06   ` John Hubbard
2019-08-09 22:58 ` [RFC PATCH v2 10/19] mm/gup: Pass a NULL vaddr_pin through GUP fast ira.weiny
2019-08-10  0:06   ` John Hubbard
2019-08-09 22:58 ` [RFC PATCH v2 11/19] mm/gup: Pass follow_page_context further down the call stack ira.weiny
2019-08-10  0:18   ` John Hubbard
2019-08-12 19:01     ` Ira Weiny
2019-08-09 22:58 ` [RFC PATCH v2 12/19] mm/gup: Prep put_user_pages() to take an vaddr_pin struct ira.weiny
2019-08-10  0:30   ` John Hubbard
2019-08-12 20:46     ` Ira Weiny
2019-08-09 22:58 ` [RFC PATCH v2 13/19] {mm,file}: Add file_pins objects ira.weiny
2019-08-09 22:58 ` [RFC PATCH v2 14/19] fs/locks: Associate file pins while performing GUP ira.weiny
2019-08-09 22:58 ` [RFC PATCH v2 15/19] mm/gup: Introduce vaddr_pin_pages() ira.weiny
2019-08-10  0:09   ` John Hubbard
2019-08-12 21:00     ` Ira Weiny
2019-08-12 21:20       ` John Hubbard
2019-08-11 23:07   ` John Hubbard
2019-08-12 21:01     ` Ira Weiny
2019-08-12 12:28   ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-08-12 21:48     ` Ira Weiny
2019-08-13 11:47       ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-08-13 17:46         ` Ira Weiny
2019-08-13 17:56           ` John Hubbard
2019-08-09 22:58 ` [RFC PATCH v2 16/19] RDMA/uverbs: Add back pointer to system file object ira.weiny
2019-08-12 13:00   ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-08-12 17:28     ` Ira Weiny
2019-08-12 17:56       ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-08-12 21:15         ` Ira Weiny
2019-08-13 11:48           ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-08-13 17:41             ` Ira Weiny
2019-08-13 18:00               ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-08-13 20:38                 ` Ira Weiny
2019-08-14 12:23                   ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-08-14 17:50                     ` Ira Weiny
2019-08-14 18:15                       ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-09-04 22:25                     ` Ira Weiny
2019-09-11  8:19                       ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-08-09 22:58 ` [RFC PATCH v2 17/19] RDMA/umem: Convert to vaddr_[pin|unpin]* operations ira.weiny
2019-08-09 22:58 ` [RFC PATCH v2 18/19] {mm,procfs}: Add display file_pins proc ira.weiny
2019-08-09 22:58 ` [RFC PATCH v2 19/19] mm/gup: Remove FOLL_LONGTERM DAX exclusion ira.weiny
2019-08-14 10:17 ` [RFC PATCH v2 00/19] RDMA/FS DAX truncate proposal V1,000,002 ;-) Jan Kara
2019-08-14 18:08   ` Ira Weiny
2019-08-15 13:05     ` Jan Kara
2019-08-16 19:05       ` Ira Weiny
2019-08-16 23:20         ` [RFC PATCH v2 00/19] RDMA/FS DAX truncate proposal V1,000,002 ; -) Ira Weiny
2019-08-19  6:36           ` Jan Kara
2019-08-17  2:26         ` [RFC PATCH v2 00/19] RDMA/FS DAX truncate proposal V1,000,002 ;-) Dave Chinner
2019-08-19  6:34           ` Jan Kara
2019-08-19  9:24             ` Dave Chinner
2019-08-19 12:38               ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-08-19 21:53                 ` Ira Weiny
2019-08-20  1:12                 ` Dave Chinner
2019-08-20 11:55                   ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-08-21 18:02                     ` Ira Weiny
2019-08-21 18:13                       ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-08-21 18:22                         ` John Hubbard
2019-08-21 18:57                         ` Ira Weiny
2019-08-21 19:06                           ` Ira Weiny
2019-08-21 19:48                           ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-08-21 20:44                             ` Ira Weiny
2019-08-21 23:49                               ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-08-23  3:23                               ` Dave Chinner
2019-08-23 12:04                                 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-08-24  0:11                                   ` Dave Chinner
2019-08-24  5:08                                     ` Ira Weiny
2019-08-26  5:55                                       ` Dave Chinner
2019-08-29  2:02                                         ` Ira Weiny
2019-08-29  3:27                                           ` John Hubbard
2019-08-29 16:16                                             ` Ira Weiny
2019-09-02 22:26                                           ` Dave Chinner
2019-09-04 16:54                                             ` Ira Weiny
2019-08-25 19:39                                     ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-08-24  4:49                                 ` Ira Weiny
2019-08-25 19:40                                   ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-08-23  0:59                       ` Dave Chinner
2019-08-23 17:15                         ` Ira Weiny
2019-08-24  0:18                           ` Dave Chinner
2019-08-20  0:05               ` John Hubbard
2019-08-20  1:20                 ` Dave Chinner
2019-08-20  3:09                   ` John Hubbard
2019-08-20  3:36                     ` Dave Chinner
2019-08-21 18:43                       ` John Hubbard
2019-08-21 19:09                         ` Ira Weiny

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=fde2959db776616008fc5d31df700f5d7d899433.camel@kernel.org \
    --to=jlayton@kernel.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=jhubbard@nvidia.com \
    --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=mhocko@suse.com \
    --cc=tytso@mit.edu \
    --cc=willy@infradead.org \
    /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).