Return-Path: Received: from mail-gx0-f174.google.com ([209.85.161.174]:47909 "EHLO mail-gx0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751951Ab1FNN6U convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Jun 2011 09:58:20 -0400 Received: by gxk21 with SMTP id 21so3481394gxk.19 for ; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 06:58:19 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <9f228c643de1f0378835d6ec9a493c1320bf001d.1307921137.git.rees@umich.edu> Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 09:58:19 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/34] pnfs: let layoutcommit code handle multiple segments From: Fred Isaman To: tao.peng@emc.com Cc: rees@umich.edu, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, honey@citi.umich.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 6:40 AM, wrote: > Hi, Fred, > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org] >> On Behalf Of Fred Isaman >> Sent: Monday, June 13, 2011 10:37 PM >> To: Jim Rees >> Cc: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org; peter honeyman >> Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/34] pnfs: let layoutcommit code handle multiple segments >> >> On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 7:43 PM, Jim Rees wrote: >> > From: Peng Tao >> > >> > Some layout driver like block will have multiple segments. >> > Generic code should be able to handle it. >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Peng Tao >> > --- >> > ?fs/nfs/pnfs.c | ? 17 +++++++++++++---- >> > ?fs/nfs/pnfs.h | ? ?1 + >> > ?2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >> > >> > diff --git a/fs/nfs/pnfs.c b/fs/nfs/pnfs.c >> > index e3d618b..f03a5e0 100644 >> > --- a/fs/nfs/pnfs.c >> > +++ b/fs/nfs/pnfs.c >> > @@ -892,7 +892,7 @@ pnfs_find_lseg(struct pnfs_layout_hdr *lo, >> > ? ? ? ?dprintk("%s:Begin\n", __func__); >> > >> > ? ? ? ?assert_spin_locked(&lo->plh_inode->i_lock); >> > - ? ? ? list_for_each_entry(lseg, &lo->plh_segs, pls_list) { >> > + ? ? ? list_for_each_entry_reverse(lseg, &lo->plh_segs, pls_list) { >> >> This is a sortred list, and the order of search matters. ?You can't >> just reverse it here. > The layout segment list is in offset increasing order. But the lookup code here assumes it's a decreasing ordered list. > To fix it, we should either reverse lookup the list, or change the break condition test. Otherwise lookup always fails if not matching the first one. I agree there is a problem here that affects the generic code. I've just sent a separate patch that deals with that. Fred > >> >> > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?if (test_bit(NFS_LSEG_VALID, &lseg->pls_flags) && >> > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?is_matching_lseg(&lseg->pls_range, range)) { >> > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?ret = get_lseg(lseg); >> > @@ -1193,10 +1193,18 @@ pnfs_try_to_read_data(struct nfs_read_data *rdata, >> > ?static struct pnfs_layout_segment *pnfs_list_write_lseg(struct inode *inode) >> > ?{ >> > ? ? ? ?struct pnfs_layout_segment *lseg, *rv = NULL; >> > + ? ? ? loff_t max_pos = 0; >> > + >> > + ? ? ? list_for_each_entry(lseg, &NFS_I(inode)->layout->plh_segs, pls_list) { >> > + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? if (lseg->pls_range.iomode == IOMODE_RW) { >> > + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? if (max_pos < lseg->pls_end_pos) >> > + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? max_pos = lseg->pls_end_pos; >> > + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? if (test_and_clear_bit(NFS_LSEG_LAYOUTCOMMIT, >> &lseg->pls_flags)) >> > + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? rv = lseg; >> > + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? } >> > + ? ? ? } >> > + ? ? ? rv->pls_end_pos = max_pos; >> > >> >> The idea here was that it could be extended to use segment by >> returning a list of affected lsegs, >> not so,e random one. ?Because otherwise you have problems with the >> fact that relevant but not >> returned lsegs are going to get there refcounts messed up. > The above code relies on NFS_INO_LAYOUTCOMMIT bit to ensure that only one inode lseg has NFS_LSEG_LAYOUTCOMMIT set. But, you are right. The layoutcommit code needs a second thought. > How about making it return a list of affected lsegs and pass them around layoutcommit_procs? > > Thanks, > Tao > >> >> Fred >> >> > - ? ? ? list_for_each_entry(lseg, &NFS_I(inode)->layout->plh_segs, pls_list) >> > - ? ? ? ? ? ? ? if (lseg->pls_range.iomode == IOMODE_RW) >> > - ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? rv = lseg; >> > ? ? ? ?return rv; >> > ?} >> > >> > @@ -1211,6 +1219,7 @@ pnfs_set_layoutcommit(struct nfs_write_data *wdata) >> > ? ? ? ?if (!test_and_set_bit(NFS_INO_LAYOUTCOMMIT, &nfsi->flags)) { >> > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?/* references matched in nfs4_layoutcommit_release */ >> > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?get_lseg(wdata->lseg); >> > + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? set_bit(NFS_LSEG_LAYOUTCOMMIT, >> &wdata->lseg->pls_flags); >> > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?wdata->lseg->pls_lc_cred = >> > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?get_rpccred(wdata->args.context->state->owner- >> >so_cred); >> > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?mark_as_dirty = true; >> > diff --git a/fs/nfs/pnfs.h b/fs/nfs/pnfs.h >> > index b071b56..a3fc0f2 100644 >> > --- a/fs/nfs/pnfs.h >> > +++ b/fs/nfs/pnfs.h >> > @@ -36,6 +36,7 @@ >> > ?enum { >> > ? ? ? ?NFS_LSEG_VALID = 0, ? ? /* cleared when lseg is recalled/returned */ >> > ? ? ? ?NFS_LSEG_ROC, ? ? ? ? ? /* roc bit received from server */ >> > + ? ? ? NFS_LSEG_LAYOUTCOMMIT, ?/* layoutcommit bit set for >> layoutcommit */ >> > ?}; >> > >> > ?struct pnfs_layout_segment { >> > -- >> > 1.7.4.1 >> > >> > -- >> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in >> > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >> > 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 majordomo@vger.kernel.org >> 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 majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at ?http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >