Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Fri, 13 Nov 2020 09:50:50 -0500
From:   bfields <bfields@fieldses.org>
To:     Daire Byrne <daire@dneg.com>
Cc:     Trond Myklebust <trondmy@hammerspace.com>,
        linux-cachefs <linux-cachefs@redhat.com>,
        linux-nfs <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Adventures in NFS re-exporting
Message-ID: <20201113145050.GB1299@fieldses.org>
References: <943482310.31162206.1599499860595.JavaMail.zimbra@dneg.com>
 <279389889.68934777.1603124383614.JavaMail.zimbra@dneg.com>
 <635679406.70384074.1603272832846.JavaMail.zimbra@dneg.com>
 <20201109160256.GB11144@fieldses.org>
 <1744768451.86186596.1605186084252.JavaMail.zimbra@dneg.com>
 <20201112135733.GA9243@fieldses.org>
 <444227972.86442677.1605206025305.JavaMail.zimbra@dneg.com>
 <20201112205524.GI9243@fieldses.org>
 <883314904.86570901.1605222357023.JavaMail.zimbra@dneg.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <883314904.86570901.1605222357023.JavaMail.zimbra@dneg.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 11:05:57PM +0000, Daire Byrne wrote:
> So, I can't lay claim to identifying the exact optimisation/hack that
> improves the retention of the re-export server's client cache when
> re-exporting an NFSv3 server (which is then read by many clients). We
> were working with an engineer at the time who showed an interest in
> our use case and after we supplied a reproducer he suggested modifying
> the nfs/inode.c
> 
> -		if (!inode_eq_iversion_raw(inode, fattr->change_attr)) {
> +		if (inode_peek_iversion_raw(inode) < fattr->change_attr)
> {
> 
> His reasoning at the time was:
> 
> "Fixes inode invalidation caused by read access. The least important
> bit is ORed with 1 and causes the inode version to differ from the one
> seen on the NFS share. This in turn causes unnecessary re-download
> impacting the performance significantly. This fix makes it only
> re-fetch file content if inode version seen on the server is newer
> than the one on the client."
> 
> But I've always been puzzled by why this only seems to be the case
> when using knfsd to re-export the (NFSv3) client mount. Using multiple
> processes on a standard client mount never causes any similar
> re-validations. And this happens with a completely read-only share
> which is why I started to think it has something to do with atimes as
> that could perhaps still cause a "write" modification even when
> read-only?

Ah-hah!  So, it's inode_query_iversion() that's modifying a nfs inode's
i_version.  That's a special thing that only nfsd would do.

I think that's totally fixable, we'll just have to think a little about
how....

--b.