On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 08:27:55AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 10:25:55AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > e.g. Process A has an exclusive layout lease on file F. It does an > > IO to file F. The filesystem IO path checks that Process A owns the > > lease on the file and so skips straight through layout breaking > > because it owns the lease and is allowed to modify the layout. It > > then takes the inode metadata locks to allocate new space and write > > new data. > > > > Process B now tries to write to file F. The FS checks whether > > Process B owns a layout lease on file F. It doesn't, so then it > > tries to break the layout lease so the IO can proceed. The layout > > breaking code sees that process A has an exclusive layout lease > > granted, and so returns -ETXTBSY to process B - it is not allowed to > > break the lease and so the IO fails with -ETXTBSY. > > This description doesn't match the behaviour that RDMA wants either. > Even if Process A has a lease on the file, an IO from Process A which > results in blocks being freed from the file is going to result in the > RDMA device being able to write to blocks which are now freed (and > potentially reallocated to another file). I don't understand why this would not work for RDMA? As long as the layout does not change the page pins can remain in place. Ira
