From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: "Fu, Rodney" <rfu@panasas.com>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>, "hch@lst.de" <hch@lst.de>,
"viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk" <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
"linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Provision for filesystem specific open flags
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 11:48:55 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171113004855.GV4094@dastard> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <BN3PR0801MB22576444104088CEDD24DE7DAB540@BN3PR0801MB2257.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 09:04:31PM +0000, Fu, Rodney wrote:
> > No. If you want new flags bits, make a public proposal. Maybe some other
> > filesystem would also benefit from them.
>
> Ah, I see what you mean now, thanks.
>
> I would like to propose O_CONCURRENT_WRITE as a new open flag. It is
> currently used in the Panasas filesystem (panfs) and defined with value:
>
> #define O_CONCURRENT_WRITE 020000000000
>
> This flag has been provided by panfs to HPC users via the mpich package for
> well over a decade. See:
>
> https://github.com/pmodels/mpich/blob/master/src/mpi/romio/adio/ad_panfs/ad_panfs_open6.c#L344
>
> O_CONCURRENT_WRITE indicates to the filesystem that the application doing the
> open is participating in a coordinated distributed manner with other such
> applications, possibly running on different hosts. This allows the panfs
> filesystem to delegate some of the cache coherency responsibilities to the
> application, improving performance.
O_DIRECT already delegates responsibility for cache coherency to
userspace applications and it allows for concurrent writes to a
single file. Why do we need a new flag for this?
> The reason this flag is used on open as opposed to having a post-open ioctl or
> fcntl SETFL is to allow panfs to catch and reject opens by applications that
> attempt to access files that have already been opened by applications that have
> set O_CONCURRENT_WRITE.
Sounds kinda like how we already use O_EXCL on block devices.
Perhaps something like:
#define O_CONCURRENT_WRITE (O_DIRECT | O_EXCL)
To tell open to reject mixed mode access to the file on open?
-Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-11-13 0:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-11-10 16:49 Provision for filesystem specific open flags Fu, Rodney
2017-11-10 17:23 ` hch
2017-11-10 17:39 ` Fu, Rodney
2017-11-10 19:29 ` Matthew Wilcox
2017-11-10 21:04 ` Fu, Rodney
2017-11-11 0:37 ` Matthew Wilcox
2017-11-13 15:16 ` Fu, Rodney
2017-11-20 13:38 ` Jeff Layton
2017-11-13 0:48 ` Dave Chinner [this message]
2017-11-13 17:02 ` Fu, Rodney
2017-11-13 21:58 ` Dave Chinner
2017-11-14 17:35 ` Fu, Rodney
2017-11-20 13:53 ` Jeff Layton
2017-12-04 5:29 ` NeilBrown
2017-12-05 21:36 ` Andreas Dilger
2017-11-13 17:45 ` Bernd Schubert
2017-11-13 20:19 ` Fu, Rodney
2017-11-20 14:03 ` Florian Weimer
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=20171113004855.GV4094@dastard \
--to=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rfu@panasas.com \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--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).