From: Trond Myklebust <trondmy@primarydata.com>
To: "bfields@fieldses.org" <bfields@fieldses.org>,
        "tj@kernel.org" <tj@kernel.org>,
        "jlayton@poochiereds.net" <jlayton@poochiereds.net>
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
Thread-Topic: [PATCH v2] fs/nfsd/nfs4callback: Remove deprecated
 create_singlethread_workqueue
Thread-Index: AQHSAwCjpIdGs5biak6a8oJ0WnFXOqDQCxSAgAAUcYCAACtTgIAAxpMAgAAe7IA=
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2016 15:08:52 +0000
Message-ID: <1478704129.15658.1.camel@primarydata.com>
References: <20160830205348.GA31915@Karyakshetra>
         <20161108213911.GA27681@fieldses.org>
         <20161108225221.GB6460@htj.duckdns.org>
         <20161109012725.GA29930@fieldses.org>
         <1478697488.7930.7.camel@poochiereds.net>
In-Reply-To: <1478697488.7930.7.camel@poochiereds.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-ID: <BBDDB6AC2E9E604E855350E7E60C347E@namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 09 Nov 2016 15:08:52.3598
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 03193ed6-8726-4bb3-a832-18ab0d28adb7
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN6PR11MB1571
X-MC-Unique: xCWs3WIZOVSM3Pjj5FqlRw-1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from base64 to 8bit by mail.home.local id uA9F97LO016697
Content-Length: 1888
Lines: 71

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