On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 9:41 PM, Milosz Tanski <milosz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Sage,
>
> I think the incrementing version counter on the whole is a neater
> solution then using size and mtime. If nothing else it's more explicit
> in the the read cache version. With what you suggested plus additional
> changes to the open code (where the cookie gets created) the
> write-through scenario should be correct.
>
> Sadly, my understanding of the MDS protocol is still not great. So
> when doing this in the first place I erred on the side of using what
> was already in place.
>
> In a kind of un-related question. Is there a debug hook in the kclient
> (or MDS for that matter) to dump the current file inodes (names) with
> issues caps and to which hosts. This would be very helpful for
> debugging, since from time to time I see a one of the clients get
> stuck in getattr (via mdsc debug log).
>
"ceph mds tell \* dumpcache" dump the mds cache to a file. the dump
file contains caps information.
Regards
Yan, Zheng
> Thanks,
> - Milosz
>
> On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 6:56 PM, Sage Weil <sage@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Tue, 5 Nov 2013, Milosz Tanski wrote:
>>> Li,
>>>
>>> First, sorry for the late reply on this.
>>>
>>> Currently fscache is only supported for files that are open in read
>>> only mode. I originally was going to let fscache cache in the write
>>> path as well as long as the file was open in with O_LAZY. I abandoned
>>> that idea. When a user opens the file in O_LAZY we can cache things
>>> locally with the assumption that the user will care of the
>>> synchronization in some other manner. There is no way of invalidating
>>> a subset of the pages in object cached by fscache, there is no way we
>>> can make O_LAZY work well.
>>>
>>> The ceph_readpage_to_fscache() in writepage has no effect and it
>>> should be removed. ceph_readpage_to_fscache() calls cache_valid() to
>>> see if it should perform the page save, and since the file can't have
>>> a CACHE cap at the point in time it doesn't do it.
>>
>> (Hmm, Dusting off my understanding of fscache and reading
>> fs/ceph/cache.c; watch out!) It looks like cache_valid is
>>
>> static inline int cache_valid(struct ceph_inode_info *ci)
>> {
>> return ((ceph_caps_issued(ci) & CEPH_CAP_FILE_CACHE) &&
>> (ci->i_fscache_gen == ci->i_rdcache_gen));
>> }
>>
>> and in the FILE_EXCL case, the MDS will issue CACHE|BUFFER caps. But I
>> think the aux key (size+mtime) will prevent any use of the cache as soon
>> as the first write happens and mtime changes, right?
>>
>> I think that in order to make this work, we need to fix/create a
>> file_version (or something similar) field in the (mds) inode_t to have
>> some useful value. I.e., increment it any time
>>
>> - a different client/writer comes along
>> - a file is modified by the mds (e.g., truncated or recovered)
>>
>> but allow it to otherwise remain the same as long as only a single client
>> is working with the file exclusively. This will be more precise than the
>> (size, mtime) check that is currently used, and would remain valid when a
>> single client opens the same file for exclusive read/write multiple times
>> but there are no other intervening changes.
>>
>> Milosz, if that were in place, is there any reason not to wire up
>> writepage and allow the fscache to be used write-through?
>>
>> sage
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> - Milosz
>>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 11:56 PM, Li Wang <liwang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> > Currently, the pages in fscache only are updated in writepage() path,
>>> > add the process in writepages().
>>> >
>>> > Signed-off-by: Min Chen <minchen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> > Signed-off-by: Li Wang <liwang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> > Signed-off-by: Yunchuan Wen <yunchuanwen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> > ---
>>> > fs/ceph/addr.c | 8 +++++---
>>> > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>> >
>>> > diff --git a/fs/ceph/addr.c b/fs/ceph/addr.c
>>> > index 6df8bd4..cc57911 100644
>>> > --- a/fs/ceph/addr.c
>>> > +++ b/fs/ceph/addr.c
>>> > @@ -746,7 +746,7 @@ retry:
>>> >
>>> > while (!done && index <= end) {
>>> > int num_ops = do_sync ? 2 : 1;
>>> > - unsigned i;
>>> > + unsigned i, j;
>>> > int first;
>>> > pgoff_t next;
>>> > int pvec_pages, locked_pages;
>>> > @@ -894,7 +894,6 @@ get_more_pages:
>>> > if (!locked_pages)
>>> > goto release_pvec_pages;
>>> > if (i) {
>>> > - int j;
>>> > BUG_ON(!locked_pages || first < 0);
>>> >
>>> > if (pvec_pages && i == pvec_pages &&
>>> > @@ -924,7 +923,10 @@ get_more_pages:
>>> >
>>> > osd_req_op_extent_osd_data_pages(req, 0, pages, len, 0,
>>> > !!pool, false);
>>> > -
>>> > + for(j = 0; j < locked_pages; j++) {
>>> > + struct page *page = pages[j];
>>> > + ceph_readpage_to_fscache(inode, page);
>>> > + }
>>> > pages = NULL; /* request message now owns the pages array */
>>> > pool = NULL;
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > 1.7.9.5
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
>>> > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Milosz Tanski
>>> CTO
>>> 10 East 53rd Street, 37th floor
>>> New York, NY 10022
>>>
>>> p: 646-253-9055
>>> e: milosz@xxxxxxxxx
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
> --
> Milosz Tanski
> CTO
> 10 East 53rd Street, 37th floor
> New York, NY 10022
>
> p: 646-253-9055
> e: milosz@xxxxxxxxx
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
