From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) (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 95867210F4D for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2025 15:55:57 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.129.124 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1741276559; cv=none; b=ECf2vEXQmRDOKzBSquOR0BEuNVMTOVpWrRwtn0RKRJTZzKfc6wABBcKnlne01NYPZqfnbPHdkKKXty39DjgBklLiEztl+I8m+m6xEpBGzupf1SeY6Q7w72T09Om2jtH0t4u+4ubR3F1GcPoDoUuvqTuaIDDoWWzDCg7+9xc1BuI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1741276559; c=relaxed/simple; bh=kObqhbINUHnq58Ts0ynAFMe+oPoTJu0RezAjeLWYy8g=; h=From:In-Reply-To:References:To:Cc:Subject:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Date:Message-ID; b=f3pJhn1nwTQxnVkRdzcC/1VTYTrRj/kQfnVbKtCbQfrcm8tbLXIJu2kC39MAWU5rQA30o6PSo715zMrt6R6sgsE1ClD6ds6qKTa89FhbIg9Q1HCs+W7k6OtGcxuzXsakYT8PPitYIFrN9je0xtaoQG/lFw4sDPj71eTnQK14ppY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b=IXg6ZxML; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.129.124 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="IXg6ZxML" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1741276556; 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: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=8NHhi27aZByFhZvPPNchTEignqTE3P+TbomjiQklZyg=; b=IXg6ZxMLGYYQ1tXJckhB4cTSaI1bKZvb9ZSc10s8lxkUj2O9gvnR4wLBv1afgcUTgNxiZN bafbJsDVrFxVR/GUWl0pwVn/7WyJkYYqnjelTcid1omOOqaK+TKOoq+dwmT+3PCtpXAcsF +bnS3UoM3o8igiYTTR5COt4J7XKhC/Y= Received: from mx-prod-mc-05.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (ec2-54-186-198-63.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com [54.186.198.63]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-683-VLCruU2AOeutzI0ShvquKw-1; Thu, 06 Mar 2025 10:55:43 -0500 X-MC-Unique: VLCruU2AOeutzI0ShvquKw-1 X-Mimecast-MFC-AGG-ID: VLCruU2AOeutzI0ShvquKw_1741276542 Received: from mx-prod-int-04.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (mx-prod-int-04.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com [10.30.177.40]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mx-prod-mc-05.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 737BF1956083; Thu, 6 Mar 2025 15:55:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from warthog.procyon.org.uk (unknown [10.44.32.200]) by mx-prod-int-04.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 563571955DCE; Thu, 6 Mar 2025 15:55:38 +0000 (UTC) Organization: Red Hat UK Ltd. Registered Address: Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SI4 1TE, United Kingdom. Registered in England and Wales under Company Registration No. 3798903 From: David Howells In-Reply-To: References: <3989572.1734546794@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <4170997.1741192445@warthog.procyon.org.uk> To: Alex Markuze Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, Viacheslav Dubeyko , Ilya Dryomov , Xiubo Li , Jeff Layton , ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org, netfs@lists.linux.dev, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Gregory Farnum , Venky Shankar , Patrick Donnelly Subject: Re: Ceph and Netfslib Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <132457.1741276536.1@warthog.procyon.org.uk> Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2025 15:55:36 +0000 Message-ID: <132458.1741276536@warthog.procyon.org.uk> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.0 on 10.30.177.40 Does ceph_write_iter() actually need to drop the inode I/O lock in order to handle EOLDSNAPC? I'm wondering if I can deal with it in the netfs request retry code - but that means dealing with it whilst the I/O lock is held. David