Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20190923190853.GA3781@iweiny-DESK2.sc.intel.com>
 <20190923222620.GC16973@dread.disaster.area> <20190925234602.GB12748@iweiny-DESK2.sc.intel.com>
 <20190930084233.GO16973@dread.disaster.area> <20191001210156.GB5500@iweiny-DESK2.sc.intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <20191001210156.GB5500@iweiny-DESK2.sc.intel.com>
From:   Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 2 Oct 2019 06:07:27 -0700
Message-ID: <CAPcyv4jpLYUcqA6D_qfGF4FQCu-SuH67FHLcH0fCQTQ-D+hWzQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Lease semantic proposal
To:     Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>
Cc:     Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-xfs <linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-rdma <linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
        "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>,
        John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 2:02 PM Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 06:42:33PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 04:46:03PM -0700, Ira Weiny wrote:
> > > On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 08:26:20AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > > Hence, AFIACT, the above definition of a F_RDLCK|F_LAYOUT lease
> > > > doesn't appear to be compatible with the semantics required by
> > > > existing users of layout leases.
> > >
> > > I disagree.  Other than the addition of F_UNBREAK, I think this is consistent
> > > with what is currently implemented.  Also, by exporting all this to user space
> > > we can now write tests for it independent of the RDMA pinning.
> >
> > The current usage of F_RDLCK | F_LAYOUT by the pNFS code allows
> > layout changes to occur to the file while the layout lease is held.
>
> This was not my understanding.

I think you guys are talking past each other. F_RDLCK | F_LAYOUT can
be broken to allow writes to the file / layout. The new unbreakable
case would require explicit SIGKILL as "revocation method of last
resort", but that's the new incremental extension being proposed. No
changes to the current behavior of F_RDLCK | F_LAYOUT.

Dave, the question at hand is whether this new layout lease mode being
proposed is going to respond to BREAK_WRITE, or just BREAK_UNMAP. It
seems longterm page pinning conflicts really only care about
BREAK_UNMAP where pages that were part of the file are being removed
from the file. The unbreakable case can tolerate layout changes that
keep pinned pages mapped / allocated to the file.