From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.itouring.de (mail.itouring.de [85.10.202.141]) (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 594F02907 for ; Sat, 12 Apr 2025 19:19:05 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=85.10.202.141 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1744485550; cv=none; b=q/6sj6am9QTbvGxv5xMRKzlS/ryi8H6de40x3TYpWfTOGRtZuBpvM+bMSkhD8DZ9BkxxoEu5N78as+cRv2+gXyV8KcXIa7RlDHCTUVY04PFZhQW9ZdUlQi4jATwocbht4aYibzwh/y6OaSPwCNjevYpr+BeGgn+niPffZdq2/6s= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1744485550; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Loog8sTMqNbYJwjl1LC7NlGLaRHwQWxBP3UKDw2xa5Q=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=gqVS8qiZ578LrIyymssDq3ssFFUJ3Z+8xugVo4M3Eqb2DBtuVZraXBc6LRz4dsdDZ1Yx9ImYUjobGMmuO9t/Nd858txmRD0JrtYBtX0truHTVxMHnjLs5aN7VkYlSwvgsBTFQqcgYVm/Cotz899p68bPOhxhk0Hadl5ykLSu5tY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=applied-asynchrony.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=applied-asynchrony.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=85.10.202.141 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=applied-asynchrony.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=applied-asynchrony.com Received: from tux.applied-asynchrony.com (p5b07e9b7.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [91.7.233.183]) by mail.itouring.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E4545250; Sat, 12 Apr 2025 21:19:03 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.100.221] (hho.applied-asynchrony.com [192.168.100.221]) by tux.applied-asynchrony.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C291601853A9; Sat, 12 Apr 2025 21:19:03 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Re: Async client v4 mount results in unexpected number of extents on the server To: Benjamin Coddington Cc: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org References: <848f71b0-7e27-fce1-5e43-2d3c8d4522b4@applied-asynchrony.com> <3696A877-3C0E-4F70-9C7E-3FD8B9AD185F@redhat.com> <8cb74904-331a-5615-6453-6ce8948236a2@applied-asynchrony.com> <85AA0B5B-64BF-4308-8730-D62AF68F23A2@redhat.com> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Holger_Hoffst=c3=a4tte?= Organization: Applied Asynchrony, Inc. Message-ID: Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2025 21:19:03 +0200 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <85AA0B5B-64BF-4308-8730-D62AF68F23A2@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 2025-04-12 19:28, Benjamin Coddington wrote: > There isn't any guarantee of write processing order for async writes, is > there? I also don't think there's any practical impact. So I'm wondering > what's the expectation of behavior and what problem you're trying to fix? This definitely does not happen with regular local page writeback. As I said before, my expectation that NFS behaves the same way might be overly pedantic, but then again I'm still curious why this happens and whether it's a bug or just accidental behaviour. *shrug* Anway thanks for taking a look. Holger