Return-Path: Received: from fieldses.org ([174.143.236.118]:45247 "EHLO fieldses.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751082Ab0CYWF4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Mar 2010 18:05:56 -0400 Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 18:07:48 -0400 From: "J. Bruce Fields" To: Trond Myklebust Cc: Jeff Layton , linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, nfsv4@linux-nfs.org, Trond Myklebust Subject: Re: [PATCH] nfsd: don't break lease while servicing a COMMIT call (try #2) Message-ID: <20100325220748.GF8611@fieldses.org> References: <1269000388-5543-1-git-send-email-jlayton@redhat.com> <20100322194710.GO5359@fieldses.org> <20100322163340.4b3b285f@tlielax.poochiereds.net> <20100325174707.GA4033@fieldses.org> <1269540988.3648.46.camel@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <1269540988.3648.46.camel@localhost.localdomain> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 02:16:28PM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote: > On Thu, 2010-03-25 at 13:47 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 04:33:40PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > > > It looks like nfs_inode_return_delegation always calls nfs_msync_inode > > > on any valid delegation before returning it, regardless of the > > > delegation type. > > > > > > RFC 3530 says this: > > > > > > If the client is granted a read delegation, it is assured that no > > > other client has the ability to write to the file for the duration of > > > the delegation. If the client is granted a write delegation, the > > > client is assured that no other client has read or write access to > > > the file. > > > > > > That doesn't seem to imply that we must flush writes before returning > > > either type of delegation. OTOH, maybe it makes sense to treat those as > > > cache consistency points since a delegreturn sort of implies that > > > another client wants to use the file. > > > > > > I'm not quite sure how to interpret the spec here... > > > > If there's that call could cause the client to wait for an actual write > > to succeed before returning the delegation, then something's wrong. > > We're certainly expected to write back data before returning a write > delegation (see Section 9.4.4 of RFC 3530). > > For the case of a read delegation, then the spec is silent because it > contains no discussion of the case where a server grants both an open > for write and a read delegation. If you want a normative statement on > what clients should do for that case, then I suggest a discussion on the > IETF list with a view to getting it into RFC3530-bis. Yeah, that would be a good idea to get nailed down at some point. (But the current server implementation doesn't allow write opens in this situation. So I wonder why we're seeing any commit from the client at all?) --b.