From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga11.intel.com (mga11.intel.com [192.55.52.93]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ml01.01.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3C6B921290D22 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 16:58:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2019 17:00:11 -0700 From: Ira Weiny Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 00/10] RDMA/FS DAX truncate proposal Message-ID: <20190614000010.GA783@iweiny-DESK2.sc.intel.com> References: <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> <20190613152755.GI32656@bombadil.infradead.org> <20190613211321.GC32404@iweiny-DESK2.sc.intel.com> <20190613234530.GK22901@ziepe.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190613234530.GK22901@ziepe.ca> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: linux-nvdimm-bounces@lists.01.org Sender: "Linux-nvdimm" To: Jason Gunthorpe Cc: Jan Kara , linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, Dave Chinner , Jeff Layton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Matthew Wilcox , linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, =?iso-8859-1?B?Suly9G1l?= Glisse , John Hubbard , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Theodore Ts'o , linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton List-ID: On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 08:45:30PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 02:13:21PM -0700, Ira Weiny wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 08:27:55AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 10:25:55AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > > e.g. Process A has an exclusive layout lease on file F. It does an > > > > IO to file F. The filesystem IO path checks that Process A owns the > > > > lease on the file and so skips straight through layout breaking > > > > because it owns the lease and is allowed to modify the layout. It > > > > then takes the inode metadata locks to allocate new space and write > > > > new data. > > > > > > > > Process B now tries to write to file F. The FS checks whether > > > > Process B owns a layout lease on file F. It doesn't, so then it > > > > tries to break the layout lease so the IO can proceed. The layout > > > > breaking code sees that process A has an exclusive layout lease > > > > granted, and so returns -ETXTBSY to process B - it is not allowed to > > > > break the lease and so the IO fails with -ETXTBSY. > > > > > > This description doesn't match the behaviour that RDMA wants either. > > > Even if Process A has a lease on the file, an IO from Process A which > > > results in blocks being freed from the file is going to result in the > > > RDMA device being able to write to blocks which are now freed (and > > > potentially reallocated to another file). > > > > I don't understand why this would not work for RDMA? As long as the layout > > does not change the page pins can remain in place. > > Because process A had a layout lease (and presumably a MR) and the > layout was still modified in way that invalidates the RDMA MR. Oh sorry I miss read the above... (got Process A and B mixed up...) Right, but Process A still can't free those blocks because the gup pin exists on them... So yea it can't _just_ be a layout lease which controls this on the "file fd". Ira _______________________________________________ Linux-nvdimm mailing list Linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-nvdimm