Return-Path: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org
Received: from mx2.netapp.com ([216.240.18.37]:19449 "EHLO mx2.netapp.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1755270Ab2FKPlw convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>); Mon, 11 Jun 2012 11:41:52 -0400
From: "Adamson, Andy" <William.Adamson@netapp.com>
To: Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@panasas.com>
CC: "Adamson, Andy" <William.Adamson@netapp.com>,
        Benny Halevy <bhalevy@tonian.com>, "Welch, Brent" <welch@panasas.com>,
        "Bhamare, Sachin" <sbhamare@panasas.com>,
        Andy Adamson <androsadamson@gmail.com>,
        "Myklebust, Trond" <Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com>,
        "<linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>" <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Huang, James" <jhuang@panasas.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] NFSv4.1 mark layout when already returned
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 15:41:36 +0000
Message-ID: <005343AE-888D-4CE1-A928-685252AE9C84@netapp.com>
References: <1338571178-2096-1-git-send-email-andros@netapp.com>
 <1338571178-2096-2-git-send-email-andros@netapp.com>
 <4FCA98E7.2030006@panasas.com>
 <1C92D18B-1977-4A12-A4DA-84DAC4B3E81E@netapp.com>
 <4FCE1DC1.6050100@panasas.com>
 <CAHVgHyXVCUdVFMO1WcRofOCvgDs7Reqsrs39qrZR7UnXWzG8RQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <4FD5C0EA.806@tonian.com> <4FD5CBF6.6030800@panasas.com>
 <4FD5FAEF.5040004@tonian.com>
 <47AB2031-76C2-4E10-9C55-D328E2994780@netapp.com>
 <4FD605DA.2070203@panasas.com>
In-Reply-To: <4FD605DA.2070203@panasas.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-nfs.vger.kernel.org>


On Jun 11, 2012, at 10:51 AM, Boaz Harrosh wrote:

> On 06/11/2012 05:21 PM, Adamson, Andy wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Jun 11, 2012, at 10:04 AM, Benny Halevy wrote:
>> 
>>> On 2012-06-11 13:44, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
>>>> Basically my plan is to postpone the LAYOUTRETURN send to
>>>> when the segment is last referenced, if a flag was set to
>>>> do so, and make sure reference counting is done proper, so
>>>> after flag set the last IO_done will send the LAYOUTRETURN.
>>>> 
>>>> If that is OK with all I hope?
>>> 
>>> Sounds OK to me.  Thanks!
>> 
>> Sounds fine to me as well, for LAYOUTRETURN during normal behavior.
>> 
>> -->Andy
> 
> 
> I'm not sure I understood what you meant.
> 
> In the "normal behavior" we don't send a LAYOUTRETURN at all
> in the forgetful model. Which proved beneficiary in the light
> of concurrent GETs vs RETURNs.
> 
> I thought we are only taking about the error case. Do you
> mean there is a 3rd case? please explain.


The normal case of calling LAYOUTRETURN on evict inode. 

-->Andy

> 
> Thanks
> Boaz