From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A391C31E45 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 15:32:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EF8E20B7C for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 15:32:51 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b="iMC2hvEI" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728859AbfFMPcj (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Jun 2019 11:32:39 -0400 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.133]:41576 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728462AbfFMKrr (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Jun 2019 06:47:47 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=bombadil.20170209; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version :References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=GEs9TuIKz96lXRS7FnLGyqSMFlOm6a6Nuvp5RkrDbpg=; b=iMC2hvEIOcyryH8ttvBTFCIwJ +/UTOZxleRRIx/Qk3yqPfUzPCOda7GErke13ZzFQak5ewSoRm8WulpfqNH7Zcz8Q/4E8j/T6eNEmH zqn/a0VQTD+joB/VdqCU1xYbOG/t0Yt1iH7D4MVcM+JnmapUwUFZ9n9jOt8V0iESGcP+afyjOL9pH +Z800XzTY/YS/+CM4flrqhchMwkDHfagPOomV5WMld5ChIy1boYvTjVntNNzTcy5LKpr/Bsx2mf7S S446zK0y8A3V0fwGhTmnFSvXqbCAHfkut7f3C9ZExu7tOQe+5MbplKDwi6MAkqGaZIAtnEYCa3p8M bMZjvH0qQ==; Received: from willy by bombadil.infradead.org with local (Exim 4.92 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1hbNGh-0007DC-6o; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 10:47:43 +0000 Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2019 03:47:43 -0700 From: Matthew Wilcox To: Dave Chinner Cc: Ira Weiny , Jan Kara , Dan Williams , Theodore Ts'o , Jeff Layton , linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , John Hubbard , =?iso-8859-1?B?Suly9G1l?= Glisse , 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 , linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 00/10] RDMA/FS DAX truncate proposal Message-ID: <20190613104743.GH32656@bombadil.infradead.org> References: <20190606014544.8339-1-ira.weiny@intel.com> <20190606104203.GF7433@quack2.suse.cz> <20190606220329.GA11698@iweiny-DESK2.sc.intel.com> <20190607110426.GB12765@quack2.suse.cz> <20190607182534.GC14559@iweiny-DESK2.sc.intel.com> <20190608001036.GF14308@dread.disaster.area> <20190612123751.GD32656@bombadil.infradead.org> <20190613002555.GH14363@dread.disaster.area> <20190613032320.GG32656@bombadil.infradead.org> <20190613043649.GJ14363@dread.disaster.area> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190613043649.GJ14363@dread.disaster.area> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15) Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org 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.