Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.34 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.34;
Organization: Red Hat UK Ltd. Registered Address: Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley
        Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SI4 1TE, United
        Kingdom.
        Registered in England and Wales under Company Registration No. 3798903
From:   David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <11ec6f637698feb04963c6a7c39a5ca80af95464.camel@kernel.org>
References: <11ec6f637698feb04963c6a7c39a5ca80af95464.camel@kernel.org> <20231013155727.2217781-1-dhowells@redhat.com> <20231013155727.2217781-3-dhowells@redhat.com>
To:     Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
Cc:     dhowells@redhat.com, Steve French <smfrench@gmail.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com>,
        Paulo Alcantara <pc@manguebit.com>,
        Ronnie Sahlberg <lsahlber@redhat.com>,
        Shyam Prasad N <sprasad@microsoft.com>,
        Tom Talpey <tom@talpey.com>,
        Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>,
        Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@gmail.com>,
        Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io>,
        linux-afs@lists.infradead.org, linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org,
        v9fs@lists.linux.dev, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-cachefs@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 02/53] netfs: Track the fpos above which the server has no data
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <2841425.1697473872.1@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date:   Mon, 16 Oct 2023 17:31:12 +0100
Message-ID: <2841426.1697473872@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Precedence: bulk

Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org> wrote:

> >  (7) If stored data is culled from the local cache, we must set zero_point
> >      above that if the data also got written to the server.
> 
> When you say culled here, it sounds like you're just throwing out the
> dirty cache without writing the data back. That shouldn't be allowed
> though, so I must be misunderstanding what you mean here. Can you
> explain?

I meant fscache specifically.  Too many caches - and some of them with the
same names!

> >  (8) If dirty data is written back to the server, but not the local cache,
> >      we must set zero_point above that.
> 
> How do you write back without writing to the local cache? I'm guessing
> this means you're doing a non-buffered write?

I meant fscache.  fscache can decline to honour a request to store data.

> > +		if (size != i_size) {
> > +			truncate_pagecache(&vnode->netfs.inode, size);
> > +			netfs_resize_file(&vnode->netfs, size);
> > +			fscache_resize_cookie(afs_vnode_cache(vnode), size);
> > +		}
> 
> Isn't this an existing bug? AFS is not setting remote_i_size in the
> setattr path currently? I think this probably ought to be done in a
> preliminary AFS patch.

It is being set.  afs_apply_status() sets it.  This is called by
afs_vnode_commit_status() which is called from afs_setattr_success().  The
value isn't updated until we get the return status from the server that
includes the new value.

> > +	loff_t			zero_point;	/* Size after which we assume there's no data
> > +						 * on the server */
> 
> While I understand the concept, I'm not yet sure I understand how this
> new value will be used. It might be better to merge this patch in with
> the patch that adds the first user of this data.

I'll consider it.  At least it might make sense to move them adjacent to each
other in the series.

David