The RFC3530 describes that the client's all lock operations, including those
requesting non-exclusive locks, should be sent to the server for resolution,
even if it holds a read open delegation. But the kernel implements like that
lock operations can be performed locally when a client holds an open
delegation.
The following are the RFC3530 provisions for Open Delegation and File Locks:
9.4.2. Open Delegation and File Locks
When a client holds a write open delegation, lock operations may be
performed locally. This includes those required for mandatory file
locking. This can be done since the delegation implies that there
can be no conflicting locks. Similarly, all of the revalidations
that would normally be associated with obtaining locks and the
flushing of data associated with the releasing of locks need not be
done.
When a client holds a read open delegation, lock operations are not
performed locally. All lock operations, including those requesting
non-exclusive locks, are sent to the server for resolution.
Signed-off-by: Fu Liankun <[email protected]>
---
fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c | 7 -------
1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
index 0f24cdf..3bba85b 100644
--- a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
+++ b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
@@ -4215,13 +4215,6 @@ static int _nfs4_proc_setlk(struct nfs4_state *state, int cmd, struct file_lock
if (status < 0)
goto out;
down_read(&nfsi->rwsem);
- if (test_bit(NFS_DELEGATED_STATE, &state->flags)) {
- /* Yes: cache locks! */
- /* ...but avoid races with delegation recall... */
- request->fl_flags = fl_flags & ~FL_SLEEP;
- status = do_vfs_lock(request->fl_file, request);
- goto out_unlock;
- }
status = _nfs4_do_setlk(state, cmd, request, NFS_LOCK_NEW);
if (status != 0)
goto out_unlock;
--
1.7.3.1
On Fri, 2011-01-14 at 13:16 -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 02:45:56PM +0800, Fu Liankun wrote:
> > The RFC3530 describes that the client's all lock operations, including those
> > requesting non-exclusive locks, should be sent to the server for resolution,
> > even if it holds a read open delegation. But the kernel implements like that
> > lock operations can be performed locally when a client holds an open
> > delegation.
> >
> > The following are the RFC3530 provisions for Open Delegation and File Locks:
> >
> > 9.4.2. Open Delegation and File Locks
> >
> > When a client holds a write open delegation, lock operations may be
> > performed locally. This includes those required for mandatory file
> > locking. This can be done since the delegation implies that there
> > can be no conflicting locks. Similarly, all of the revalidations
> > that would normally be associated with obtaining locks and the
> > flushing of data associated with the releasing of locks need not be
> > done.
> >
> > When a client holds a read open delegation, lock operations are not
> > performed locally. All lock operations, including those requesting
> > non-exclusive locks, are sent to the server for resolution.
>
> Weird. Can the rfc really be right about that?
>
> I guess it does permit servers to allow write-locks on read-open files,
> but it seems bizarre not to require them to break delegations in that
> case.
The ability to cache locks is one of the main reasons for holding
delegations in the first place. Sure, the spec allows for non-posix
locking, but the Linux client doesn't.
IOW: This patch will not be applied.
Trond
> --b.
>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Fu Liankun <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c | 7 -------
> > 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
> > index 0f24cdf..3bba85b 100644
> > --- a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
> > +++ b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
> > @@ -4215,13 +4215,6 @@ static int _nfs4_proc_setlk(struct nfs4_state *state, int cmd, struct file_lock
> > if (status < 0)
> > goto out;
> > down_read(&nfsi->rwsem);
> > - if (test_bit(NFS_DELEGATED_STATE, &state->flags)) {
> > - /* Yes: cache locks! */
> > - /* ...but avoid races with delegation recall... */
> > - request->fl_flags = fl_flags & ~FL_SLEEP;
> > - status = do_vfs_lock(request->fl_file, request);
> > - goto out_unlock;
> > - }
> > status = _nfs4_do_setlk(state, cmd, request, NFS_LOCK_NEW);
> > if (status != 0)
> > goto out_unlock;
> > --
> > 1.7.3.1
> >
> > --
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
> > the body of a message to [email protected]
> > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
Trond Myklebust
Linux NFS client maintainer
NetApp
[email protected]
http://www.netapp.com
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 02:45:56PM +0800, Fu Liankun wrote:
> The RFC3530 describes that the client's all lock operations, including those
> requesting non-exclusive locks, should be sent to the server for resolution,
> even if it holds a read open delegation. But the kernel implements like that
> lock operations can be performed locally when a client holds an open
> delegation.
>
> The following are the RFC3530 provisions for Open Delegation and File Locks:
>
> 9.4.2. Open Delegation and File Locks
>
> When a client holds a write open delegation, lock operations may be
> performed locally. This includes those required for mandatory file
> locking. This can be done since the delegation implies that there
> can be no conflicting locks. Similarly, all of the revalidations
> that would normally be associated with obtaining locks and the
> flushing of data associated with the releasing of locks need not be
> done.
>
> When a client holds a read open delegation, lock operations are not
> performed locally. All lock operations, including those requesting
> non-exclusive locks, are sent to the server for resolution.
Weird. Can the rfc really be right about that?
I guess it does permit servers to allow write-locks on read-open files,
but it seems bizarre not to require them to break delegations in that
case.
--b.
>
> Signed-off-by: Fu Liankun <[email protected]>
> ---
> fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c | 7 -------
> 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
> index 0f24cdf..3bba85b 100644
> --- a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
> +++ b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
> @@ -4215,13 +4215,6 @@ static int _nfs4_proc_setlk(struct nfs4_state *state, int cmd, struct file_lock
> if (status < 0)
> goto out;
> down_read(&nfsi->rwsem);
> - if (test_bit(NFS_DELEGATED_STATE, &state->flags)) {
> - /* Yes: cache locks! */
> - /* ...but avoid races with delegation recall... */
> - request->fl_flags = fl_flags & ~FL_SLEEP;
> - status = do_vfs_lock(request->fl_file, request);
> - goto out_unlock;
> - }
> status = _nfs4_do_setlk(state, cmd, request, NFS_LOCK_NEW);
> if (status != 0)
> goto out_unlock;
> --
> 1.7.3.1
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Mon, 2011-11-28 at 14:31 +0800, Mi Jinlong wrote:
> Hi Trond,
>
> Trond Myklebust:
> > The ability to cache locks is one of the main reasons for holding
> > delegations in the first place. Sure, the spec allows for non-posix
> > locking, but the Linux client doesn't.
>
> Would you mind tell me some about why we not support non-posix locking at NFS ?
For the very obvious reason that Linux applications are coded under the
assumption that the kernel implements POSIX locking semantics. Why would
we want to implement support for NFS features that can cause perfectly
correctly coded applications to hang and crash?
Trond
--
Trond Myklebust
Linux NFS client maintainer
NetApp
[email protected]
http://www.netapp.com
Hi Trond,
Trond Myklebust:
> On Fri, 2011-01-14 at 13:16 -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 02:45:56PM +0800, Fu Liankun wrote:
>>> The RFC3530 describes that the client's all lock operations, including those
>>> requesting non-exclusive locks, should be sent to the server for resolution,
>>> even if it holds a read open delegation. But the kernel implements like that
>>> lock operations can be performed locally when a client holds an open
>>> delegation.
>>>
>>> The following are the RFC3530 provisions for Open Delegation and File Locks:
>>>
>>> 9.4.2. Open Delegation and File Locks
>>>
>>> When a client holds a write open delegation, lock operations may be
>>> performed locally. This includes those required for mandatory file
>>> locking. This can be done since the delegation implies that there
>>> can be no conflicting locks. Similarly, all of the revalidations
>>> that would normally be associated with obtaining locks and the
>>> flushing of data associated with the releasing of locks need not be
>>> done.
>>>
>>> When a client holds a read open delegation, lock operations are not
>>> performed locally. All lock operations, including those requesting
>>> non-exclusive locks, are sent to the server for resolution.
>> Weird. Can the rfc really be right about that?
>>
>> I guess it does permit servers to allow write-locks on read-open files,
>> but it seems bizarre not to require them to break delegations in that
>> case.
>
> The ability to cache locks is one of the main reasons for holding
> delegations in the first place. Sure, the spec allows for non-posix
> locking, but the Linux client doesn't.
Would you mind tell me some about why we not support non-posix locking at NFS ?
thanks,
Mi Jinlong
>
> IOW: This patch will not be applied.
>
> Trond
>
>> --b.
>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Fu Liankun <[email protected]>
>>> ---
>>> fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c | 7 -------
>>> 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
>>> index 0f24cdf..3bba85b 100644
>>> --- a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
>>> +++ b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
>>> @@ -4215,13 +4215,6 @@ static int _nfs4_proc_setlk(struct nfs4_state *state, int cmd, struct file_lock
>>> if (status < 0)
>>> goto out;
>>> down_read(&nfsi->rwsem);
>>> - if (test_bit(NFS_DELEGATED_STATE, &state->flags)) {
>>> - /* Yes: cache locks! */
>>> - /* ...but avoid races with delegation recall... */
>>> - request->fl_flags = fl_flags & ~FL_SLEEP;
>>> - status = do_vfs_lock(request->fl_file, request);
>>> - goto out_unlock;
>>> - }
>>> status = _nfs4_do_setlk(state, cmd, request, NFS_LOCK_NEW);
>>> if (status != 0)
>>> goto out_unlock;
>>> --
>>> 1.7.3.1
>>>
>>> --
>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
>>> the body of a message to [email protected]
>>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
>> the body of a message to [email protected]
>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>