Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 13 Jun 2019 12:29:53 -0300
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc:     Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
        Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
        Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>,
        Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>,
        =?utf-8?B?SsOpcsO0bWU=?= Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com>,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 00/10] RDMA/FS DAX truncate proposal
Message-ID: <20190613152953.GD22901@ziepe.ca>
References: <20190606014544.8339-1-ira.weiny@intel.com>
 <20190606104203.GF7433@quack2.suse.cz>
 <20190606220329.GA11698@iweiny-DESK2.sc.intel.com>
 <20190607110426.GB12765@quack2.suse.cz>
 <20190607182534.GC14559@iweiny-DESK2.sc.intel.com>
 <20190608001036.GF14308@dread.disaster.area>
 <20190612123751.GD32656@bombadil.infradead.org>
 <20190613002555.GH14363@dread.disaster.area>
 <20190613032320.GG32656@bombadil.infradead.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190613032320.GG32656@bombadil.infradead.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 08:23:20PM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 10:25:55AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 05:37:53AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > That's rather different from the normal meaning of 'exclusive' in the
> > > context of locks, which is "only one user can have access to this at
> > > a time".
> > 
> > Layout leases are not locks, they are a user access policy object.
> > It is the process/fd which holds the lease and it's the process/fd
> > that is granted exclusive access.  This is exactly the same semantic
> > as O_EXCL provides for granting exclusive access to a block device
> > via open(), yes?
> 
> This isn't my understanding of how RDMA wants this to work, so we should
> probably clear that up before we get too far down deciding what name to
> give it.
> 
> For the RDMA usage case, it is entirely possible that both process A
> and process B which don't know about each other want to perform RDMA to
> file F.  So there will be two layout leases active on this file at the
> same time.  It's fine for IOs to simultaneously be active to both leases.
> But if the filesystem wants to move blocks around, it has to break
> both leases.
> 
> If Process C tries to do a write to file F without a lease, there's no
> problem, unless a side-effect of the write would be to change the block
> mapping, in which case either the leases must break first, or the write
> must be denied.
> 
> Jason, please correct me if I've misunderstood the RDMA needs here.

Yes, I think you've captured it

Based on Dave's remarks how frequently a filesystem needs to break the
lease will determine if it is usuable to be combined with RDMA or
not...

Jason