From: Trond Myklebust <trondmy@hammerspace.com>
To: "dai.ngo@oracle.com" <dai.ngo@oracle.com>,
"chuck.lever@oracle.com" <chuck.lever@oracle.com>
Cc: "bfields@fieldses.org" <bfields@fieldses.org>,
"linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org" <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v6 2/2] nfsd: Initial implementation of NFSv4 Courteous Server
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2021 16:16:09 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ba637e0c64b6a2b53c8b5bf197ce02d239cdc0d2.camel@hammerspace.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f6d65309-6679-602a-19b8-414ce29c691a@oracle.com>
On Wed, 2021-12-08 at 07:54 -0800, dai.ngo@oracle.com wrote:
> On 12/6/21 11:55 AM, Chuck Lever III wrote:
>
> >
> > > +
> > > +/*
> > > + * Function to check if the nfserr_share_denied error for 'fp'
> > > resulted
> > > + * from conflict with courtesy clients then release their state to
> > > resolve
> > > + * the conflict.
> > > + *
> > > + * Function returns:
> > > + * 0 - no conflict with courtesy clients
> > > + * >0 - conflict with courtesy clients resolved, try
> > > access/deny check again
> > > + * -1 - conflict with courtesy clients being resolved in
> > > background
> > > + * return nfserr_jukebox to NFS client
> > > + */
> > > +static int
> > > +nfs4_destroy_clnts_with_sresv_conflict(struct svc_rqst *rqstp,
> > > + struct nfs4_file *fp, struct
> > > nfs4_ol_stateid *stp,
> > > + u32 access, bool share_access)
> > > +{
> > > + int cnt = 0;
> > > + int async_cnt = 0;
> > > + bool no_retry = false;
> > > + struct nfs4_client *cl;
> > > + struct list_head *pos, *next, reaplist;
> > > + struct nfsd_net *nn = net_generic(SVC_NET(rqstp),
> > > nfsd_net_id);
> > > +
> > > + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&reaplist);
> > > + spin_lock(&nn->client_lock);
> > > + list_for_each_safe(pos, next, &nn->client_lru) {
> > > + cl = list_entry(pos, struct nfs4_client, cl_lru);
> > > + /*
> > > + * check all nfs4_ol_stateid of this client
> > > + * for conflicts with 'access'mode.
> > > + */
> > > + if (nfs4_check_deny_bmap(cl, fp, stp, access,
> > > share_access)) {
> > > + if (!test_bit(NFSD4_COURTESY_CLIENT, &cl-
> > > >cl_flags)) {
> > > + /* conflict with non-courtesy
> > > client */
> > > + no_retry = true;
> > > + cnt = 0;
> > > + goto out;
> > > + }
> > > + /*
> > > + * if too many to resolve synchronously
> > > + * then do the rest in background
> > > + */
> > > + if (cnt > 100) {
> > > + set_bit(NFSD4_DESTROY_COURTESY_CLIE
> > > NT, &cl->cl_flags);
> > > + async_cnt++;
> > > + continue;
> > > + }
> > > + if (mark_client_expired_locked(cl))
> > > + continue;
> > > + cnt++;
> > > + list_add(&cl->cl_lru, &reaplist);
> > > + }
> > > + }
> > Bruce suggested simply returning NFS4ERR_DELAY for all cases.
> > That would simplify this quite a bit for what is a rare edge
> > case.
>
> If we always do this asynchronously by returning NFS4ERR_DELAY
> for all cases then the following pynfs tests need to be modified
> to handle the error:
>
> RENEW3 st_renew.testExpired :
> FAILURE
> LKU10 st_locku.testTimedoutUnlock :
> FAILURE
> CLOSE9 st_close.testTimedoutClose2 :
> FAILURE
>
> and any new tests that opens file have to be prepared to handle
> NFS4ERR_DELAY due to the lack of destroy_clientid in 4.0.
>
> Do we still want to take this approach?
NFS4ERR_DELAY is a valid error for both CLOSE and LOCKU (see RFC7530
section 13.2 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7530#section-13.2
) so if pynfs complains, then it needs fixing regardless.
RENEW, on the other hand, cannot return NFS4ERR_DELAY, but why would it
need to? Either the lease is still valid, or else someone is already
trying to tear it down due to an expiration event. I don't see why
courtesy locks need to add any further complexity to that test.
--
Trond Myklebust
Linux NFS client maintainer, Hammerspace
trond.myklebust@hammerspace.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-12-08 16:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-12-06 17:59 [PATCH RFC v6 0/2] nfsd: Initial implementation of NFSv4 Courteous Server Dai Ngo
2021-12-06 17:59 ` [PATCH RFC v6 1/2] fs/lock: add new callback, lm_expire_lock, to lock_manager_operations Dai Ngo
2021-12-06 18:39 ` Chuck Lever III
2021-12-06 19:52 ` Trond Myklebust
2021-12-06 20:05 ` bfields
2021-12-06 20:36 ` dai.ngo
2021-12-06 22:05 ` Trond Myklebust
2021-12-06 23:07 ` dai.ngo
2021-12-06 17:59 ` [PATCH RFC v6 2/2] nfsd: Initial implementation of NFSv4 Courteous Server Dai Ngo
2021-12-06 19:55 ` Chuck Lever III
2021-12-06 21:44 ` dai.ngo
2021-12-06 22:30 ` Chuck Lever III
2021-12-06 22:52 ` Bruce Fields
2021-12-07 22:00 ` Chuck Lever III
2021-12-07 22:35 ` Bruce Fields
2021-12-08 15:17 ` Chuck Lever III
2021-12-08 15:54 ` dai.ngo
2021-12-08 15:58 ` Chuck Lever III
2021-12-08 16:16 ` Trond Myklebust [this message]
2021-12-08 16:25 ` dai.ngo
2021-12-08 16:39 ` bfields
2021-12-08 17:29 ` dai.ngo
2021-12-08 17:45 ` bfields
2021-12-10 17:51 ` dai.ngo
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=ba637e0c64b6a2b53c8b5bf197ce02d239cdc0d2.camel@hammerspace.com \
--to=trondmy@hammerspace.com \
--cc=bfields@fieldses.org \
--cc=chuck.lever@oracle.com \
--cc=dai.ngo@oracle.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.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