From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mx.manguebit.com (mx.manguebit.com [167.235.159.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 39E9118024 for ; Mon, 12 May 2025 22:57:57 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=167.235.159.17 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1747090680; cv=none; b=AAU7oowI4Bxi6vfVf5euF4Xc79tfSQSNA/2fnXGCGt7Lf88NFLa2RdyWLHqTv3LY2hJ2H9oJ5agLBhsQNeJyZLACq0RM9TzIoHJ51jMWnLpvCt8P9dhEh+EIekekzblvC6ifvhGycs8FLpgVCZ36pRPWMvC66zG+tsWZOgVvadk= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1747090680; c=relaxed/simple; bh=UUte5PlwpTG7GzVye66hQKuHtM6ULk870glJwEHHDTo=; h=Message-ID:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=TEywqBqmBb/oJxWk/oyy2JsKSXJYeNNpPMsC4IijOCMF5Xo9J0Oe9dsII4YCylgUt09+JFVRtRdjQRsMRAF1rtErAIt/566advB3ZUPL7xxUlpus9D6Rl5T4xNJXSLj/BkzTrKtDseGNM2g/0GGiG5eh9T94Vh2wvkoCLJnEH8E= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=manguebit.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=manguebit.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=manguebit.com header.i=@manguebit.com header.b=obPzezQP; arc=none smtp.client-ip=167.235.159.17 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=manguebit.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=manguebit.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=manguebit.com header.i=@manguebit.com header.b="obPzezQP" Message-ID: <2f71b485b8a733acf11c5de66e68438c@manguebit.com> DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=manguebit.com; s=dkim; t=1747090676; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=IrmQFZQmwvXAURtSmxjz/L1sCYGbtxTrsIHrPveDF5A=; b=obPzezQPV3zCoZ9EzHcVn9qZNao6JTaszNpO9F9yO6A9uq6yVWJAXMz9B6JeL/CwDiBNr3 fhj4owfNJdQIKM37HOcQ0nzqofBIOB+IMnJCW/3ilvWN1Klu7kCN1QEURmoSI5Q0sPMA9G 38coTa2aXUZrZ4ZU/B/nTabyOznUFSqQEILajBCKMbmxIqYLgn/CxifN80IUUwMdxNoPQ/ cOQUyWYob51EprXFcGfU7E2EUjf3iJREW07R+qIL34Kw4GhFjWvivu7Yg5z1l8TPqoqo9c ktczviHOcVs5IdQGTGh8CTe4U/EMlSC+FYuaxXYIVAow9pCbM7xfd7kjMPc9TQ== From: Paulo Alcantara To: Steve French Cc: Shyam Prasad N , Bharath SM , linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org, David Howells , Pierguido Lambri , Bharath S M Subject: Re: [PATCH] smb: client: fix delay on concurrent opens In-Reply-To: References: <20250428140500.1462107-1-pc@manguebit.com> <2f76f9b0b3e5ca99fce360d19b0d6218@manguebit.com> <3d7d41c055cd314342ec1f33e6332c32@manguebit.com> <3d60f40bbcd3d297b860f4359bf63def@manguebit.com> Date: Mon, 12 May 2025 19:57:51 -0300 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Steve French writes: > On Mon, May 12, 2025 at 8:31=E2=80=AFAM Paulo Alcantara wrote: >> >> Shyam Prasad N writes: >> >> > I think this version of the patch will be more problematic, as it will >> > open up a time window between the lease break ack and the file close. >> > Which is why we moved the _cifsFileInfo_put above as it is today. >> >> Can you explain why it would be a problem sending a lease break ack >> and then closing the file? > > It is a performance issue to send an extra roundtrip that is unneeded, so > key question is why was the close not sent immediately if it was > a deferred close case. Agreed. Even worse when the saved roundtrip causes concurrent opens to be delayed by 30s. Look at the commands I shared. The close is sent immediately after the lease break is received by the client.