Received: by 2002:a05:6a10:eb17:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id hx23csp2735464pxb; Mon, 6 Sep 2021 04:20:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz8V4Su4zjdmPtET2RqgK41uxs++hPIkhnHQD40OYDmgCbSgWMC+Y8hiOl3nlFpj948NRcb X-Received: by 2002:a6b:fd1a:: with SMTP id c26mr9094570ioi.57.1630927243712; Mon, 06 Sep 2021 04:20:43 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1630927243; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=LarXlVtoF8V2nuLriFfoGkUbjlyWrIDxdj9WMvpMKC1G+VksOsN5b2BM1urJurCdpo cw+PMcEB+TrOf+w/lGL5oBxw57EamJ46oUKBdtDhV5DqNedLIQNpnXjObpWXfGdPayad 97BoRIVftmfmDxb5QUuN9sgxdmv5JlS5BRIgtdXsXY6GB17lpp1uuHcOKj0QqzPlQKHq Rywmo9Mtfpdz3A+xdjTArx3yYduc1EZGpnvwS/hqI0yjgAlqb+4EJaFwaw1MOrUfkQDi 3iuODAVRksLip38n/1STDjNZFDQU8iSBZ0ThHIRwDHbg4B2minka02/5jHrl/4aw8krC 2mZg== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:content-transfer-encoding:content-language :in-reply-to:mime-version:user-agent:date:message-id:from:references :cc:to:subject; bh=1ki5J9uSDUvhMY8jk36cyev3egySoR8fBTs0m52ipn4=; b=yjHYJajbFoSHOl00jPiOK617WCkPmUq/2aU+fc49l6C0nzXrewBxSkFGKqekw8ZSgH kT46Xdg7/jgI1jcIGq7GUH0X/X33oDhdMaPm57Ti4N8xBGxni627rwhsRGB6rLuLyeHU RM6V3sjDUoGJmPEeufB2WoYD7ArJeLxrjpAs7UdPLx3ODzWtVcf6/KCWqpOjX5UzDgmd njP8YA3hSisaIj54SLM6aE8i7CLkB5FIwdmTRrZwumIw5S9TAbIgancZkpzvQvoQQIVF BMV6YqM5YefdbmKwVLal63L+NHkvrtDkVchM5obD1FW8/xxugyMdNLwC2TZNQtIoAw9I 1OXQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=alibaba.com Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [23.128.96.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id 11si7660275ilq.55.2021.09.06.04.20.30; Mon, 06 Sep 2021 04:20:43 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=alibaba.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S237192AbhIFLPe (ORCPT + 99 others); Mon, 6 Sep 2021 07:15:34 -0400 Received: from out30-44.freemail.mail.aliyun.com ([115.124.30.44]:46211 "EHLO out30-44.freemail.mail.aliyun.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232819AbhIFLPd (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Sep 2021 07:15:33 -0400 X-Alimail-AntiSpam: AC=PASS;BC=-1|-1;BR=01201311R151e4;CH=green;DM=||false|;DS=||;FP=0|-1|-1|-1|0|-1|-1|-1;HT=e01e04426;MF=joseph.qi@linux.alibaba.com;NM=1;PH=DS;RN=6;SR=0;TI=SMTPD_---0UnRwFtM_1630926866; Received: from B-D1K7ML85-0059.local(mailfrom:joseph.qi@linux.alibaba.com fp:SMTPD_---0UnRwFtM_1630926866) by smtp.aliyun-inc.com(127.0.0.1); Mon, 06 Sep 2021 19:14:27 +0800 Subject: Re: [PATCH] ocfs2: avoid getting dlm lock of the target directory multiple times during reflink process To: Gang He , mark@fasheh.com, jlbec@evilplan.org Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org References: <20210826075941.28480-1-ghe@suse.com> From: Joseph Qi Message-ID: <41bc413d-0926-0eae-6772-076314bbae53@linux.alibaba.com> Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2021 19:14:26 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.13.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20210826075941.28480-1-ghe@suse.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Gang, On 8/26/21 3:59 PM, Gang He wrote: > During the reflink process, we should acquire the target directory > inode dlm lock at the beginning, and hold this dlm lock until end > of the function. > With this patch, we avoid dlm lock ping-pong effect when clone > files to the same directory simultaneously from multiple nodes. > There is a typical user scenario, users regularly back up files > to a specified directory through the reflink feature from the > multiple nodes. > Since now it take dir inode lock across the whole reflink, it may impact other concurrent operations under the same directory. Have you evaluated such cases? Thanks, Joseph