From: Jeff Layton <jlayton@poochiereds.net>
To: Trond Myklebust <trondmy@primarydata.com>,
"bfields@fieldses.org" <bfields@fieldses.org>,
"tj@kernel.org" <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: "bhaktipriya96@gmail.com" <bhaktipriya96@gmail.com>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org" <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] fs/nfsd/nfs4callback: Remove deprecated create_singlethread_workqueue
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2016 10:17:07 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1478704627.7930.13.camel@poochiereds.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1478704129.15658.1.camel@primarydata.com>
On Wed, 2016-11-09 at 15:08 +0000, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-11-09 at 08:18 -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 2016-11-08 at 20:27 -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 05:52:21PM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hello, Bruce.
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 04:39:11PM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Apologies, just cleaning out old mail and finding some I should
> > > > > have
> > > > > responded to long ago:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 02:23:48AM +0530, Bhaktipriya Shridhar
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The workqueue "callback_wq" queues a single work item &cb-
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > cb_work per
> > > > > > nfsd4_callback instance and thus, it doesn't require
> > > > > > execution ordering.
> > > > >
> > > > > What's "execution ordering"?
> > > > >
> >
> > AIUI, it means that jobs are always run in the order queued and are
> > serialized.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > We definitely do depend on the fact that at most one of these
> > > > > is running
> > > > > at a time.
> > > >
> >
> > We do?
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > If there can be multiple cb's and thus cb->cb_work's per
> > > > callback_wq,
> > > > it'd need explicit ordering. Is that the case?
> > >
> >
> > These are basically client RPC tasks, and the cb_work just handles
> > the
> > submission into the client RPC state machine. Just because we're
> > running
> > several callbacks at the same time doesn't mean that they need to be
> > strictly ordered. The client state machine can certainly handle
> > running
> > these in parallel.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes, there can be multiple cb_work's.
> > >
> >
> > Yes, but each is effectively a separate work unit. I see no reason
> > why
> > we'd need to order them at all.
> >
>
> There needs to be serialisation at the session level (i.e. the
> callbacks have to respect the slot limits set by the client) however
> there shouldn’t be a need for serialisation at the RPC level.
>
> Cheers
> Trond
Yes, that all happens in nfsd4_cb_prepare, which is the rpc_call_prepare
operation for the callback. That gets run by the rpc state machine in
the context of the rpciod workqueues. None of that happens in the
context of the cb_work here.
If you have a look at nfsd4_run_cb_work, you can see that it just does a
cb_ops->prepare and then submits it to the client rpc engine with
rpc_call_async. None of that should require singlethreaded workqueue
semantics.
--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@poochiereds.net>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-11-09 15:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-08-30 20:53 [PATCH v2] fs/nfsd/nfs4callback: Remove deprecated create_singlethread_workqueue Bhaktipriya Shridhar
2016-08-30 21:07 ` Jeff Layton
2016-08-31 14:39 ` Tejun Heo
2016-08-31 15:01 ` Jeff Layton
2016-11-08 21:39 ` J. Bruce Fields
2016-11-08 22:52 ` Tejun Heo
2016-11-09 1:27 ` J. Bruce Fields
2016-11-09 13:18 ` Jeff Layton
2016-11-09 15:08 ` Trond Myklebust
2016-11-09 15:17 ` Jeff Layton [this message]
2016-11-09 16:27 ` J. Bruce Fields
2016-11-09 17:33 ` Jeff Layton
2016-11-09 19:47 ` J. Bruce Fields
2016-11-09 20:23 ` J. Bruce Fields
2016-11-09 22:35 ` Jeff Layton
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=1478704627.7930.13.camel@poochiereds.net \
--to=jlayton@poochiereds.net \
--cc=bfields@fieldses.org \
--cc=bhaktipriya96@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=trondmy@primarydata.com \
/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).