On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 11:15:53PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 10:28:08AM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > > > Apologies, that was indeed a behavioral change introduced in a commit
> > > > that claimed just to be shuffling code around.
> > >
> > > Another complaint about this series: using EINPROGRESS to signal
> > > asynchronous locking looks really fishy. How does the filesystem
> > > know, that the caller wants to do async locking?
> >
> > The caller sets a fl_grant callback. But I guess the interesting
> > question is how the caller knows that the filesystem is really going to
> > return the results asynchronously:
> >
> > > How do we make sure,
> > > that the filesystem (like fuse or 9p, which "blindly" return the error
> > > from the server) doesn't return EINPROGRESS even when it's _not_ doing
> > > an asynchronous lock?
> >
> > Right, there's no safeguard there--if fuse returns EINPROGRESS, then
> > we'll wait for a grant callback that's not going to come. It should
> > time out, so that's not a total disaster, but still.
> >
> > Anyway, I'm not sure what to do about that.
> >
> > >
> > > I think it would have been much cleaner to have a completely separate
> > > interface for async locking, instead of trying to cram that into
> > > f_op->lock().
> >
> > Maybe so. ->lock() had quite a bit crammed into it even before this.
>
> Oh yeah, but at least that was 1:1 with the fcntl interface.
>
> > > Would that be possible to fix now? Or at least make EINPROGRESS a
> > > kernel-internal error value (>512), to make it that it has a special
> > > meaning for the _kernel only_?
> >
> > Perhaps so.
> >
> > The behavior of lockd will still depend to some degree on the exact
> > error returned from the filesystem--e.g. if you return -EAGAIN from
> > ->lock() without later calling ->fl_grant() it will cause some
> > unexpected delays. (Though again clients will eventually give up and
> > poll for the lock.)
>
> OK, so the semantics of vfs_lock_file() are now:
Not quite; the original idea was that we didn't care about the blocking
lock case, since there's already a lock manager callback for that.
(It's arguably a minor abuse for us to return NLM_LCK_BLOCKED and then
do a grant later even in the case where there's no conflict, but it
works.) So we only changed the nonblocking case.
Which may be sacrificing elegance for expediency, and I'm not opposed to
fixing that in whatever way seems best. As a start, we could document
this better. So:
>
> 1) if !FL_SLEEP, then return 0 if granted, -EAGAIN on contention
> 2) if FL_SLEEP and fl_grant == NULL, then return 0 if granted, block on
> contention
> 3) if FL_SLEEP and fl_grant != NULL, then return 0 if granted, on
> contention:
> a) either return -EINPROGRESS and call fl_grant when granted
> b) or return -EAGAIN and call fl_notify when the lock needs retrying
I'd put it this way (after a quick check of the code to convince myself
I'm remembering this right...):
1) If FL_SLEEP, then return 0 if granted, and on contention either:
a) block, or
b) return -EAGAIN, and call fl_notify when the lock should be
retried.
2) If !FL_SLEEP, then either
a) return a result now, or
b) return -EINPROGRESS, then call fl_grant with the result.
In each case, b) is only of course allowed if the corresponding callback
is defined. If you want to support NFS exports, then you should also
take option b) when possible. (Though note only 1b is *required* to
avoid deadlocks; 2b is basically just a performance enhancement. We
could perhaps even ditch 2b if we fixed lockd's BKL reliance and made it
multithreaded.)
The names can be confusing, since fl_notify generally results in
granting a previously blocked lock, whereas fl_grant just returns the
result (positive or negative) of a single lock request. They have the
names they do because of the difference in their semantics:
- With fl_grant the filesystem says: I'm giving you the final
result of the lock operation. In particular, if I'm telling
you it succeeded, that means I've already granted you the
lock; don't ask me about it again.
- With fl_notify the filesystem says: something just happened to
this lock. I'm not guaranteeing anything, I'm just telling
you this would be a good time to try the lock again. Do it
and maybe you'll get lucky!
This difference is why the fl_grant() operation takes a status argument
(to tell the lock manager what happened), whereas fl_notify() doesn't
(since it's just a poke in the ribs, and only the subsequent lock call
will give the real status).
Is that explanation helpful?
OK, but I haven't read your patch yet, apologies....
--b.
>
> As a first step, how about doing the following:
>
> For 3) use LOCK_FILE_ASYNC as a return value. AFAICS there's no
> reason to distinguish between a) and b). For 1) leave the -EAGAIN
> error, since in that case no lock was queued.
>
> Here's an untested patch. Comments?
>
> Miklos
>
>
> ---
> fs/gfs2/locking/dlm/plock.c | 2 +-
> fs/lockd/svclock.c | 13 ++++---------
> fs/locks.c | 20 ++++++++++----------
> include/linux/fs.h | 15 +++++++++++++++
> 4 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
>
> Index: linux-2.6/fs/locks.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.orig/fs/locks.c 2008-04-14 22:19:57.000000000 +0200
> +++ linux-2.6/fs/locks.c 2008-04-14 22:52:06.000000000 +0200
> @@ -784,8 +784,10 @@ find_conflict:
> if (!flock_locks_conflict(request, fl))
> continue;
> error = -EAGAIN;
> - if (request->fl_flags & FL_SLEEP)
> - locks_insert_block(fl, request);
> + if (!(request->fl_flags & FL_SLEEP))
> + goto out;
> + error = FILE_LOCK_ASYNC;
> + locks_insert_block(fl, request);
> goto out;
> }
> if (request->fl_flags & FL_ACCESS)
> @@ -841,7 +843,7 @@ static int __posix_lock_file(struct inod
> error = -EDEADLK;
> if (posix_locks_deadlock(request, fl))
> goto out;
> - error = -EAGAIN;
> + error = FILE_LOCK_ASYNC;
> locks_insert_block(fl, request);
> goto out;
> }
> @@ -1040,7 +1042,7 @@ int posix_lock_file_wait(struct file *fi
> might_sleep ();
> for (;;) {
> error = posix_lock_file(filp, fl, NULL);
> - if ((error != -EAGAIN) || !(fl->fl_flags & FL_SLEEP))
> + if (error != FILE_LOCK_ASYNC)
> break;
> error = wait_event_interruptible(fl->fl_wait, !fl->fl_next);
> if (!error)
> @@ -1112,9 +1114,7 @@ int locks_mandatory_area(int read_write,
>
> for (;;) {
> error = __posix_lock_file(inode, &fl, NULL);
> - if (error != -EAGAIN)
> - break;
> - if (!(fl.fl_flags & FL_SLEEP))
> + if (error != FILE_LOCK_ASYNC)
> break;
> error = wait_event_interruptible(fl.fl_wait, !fl.fl_next);
> if (!error) {
> @@ -1534,7 +1534,7 @@ int flock_lock_file_wait(struct file *fi
> might_sleep();
> for (;;) {
> error = flock_lock_file(filp, fl);
> - if ((error != -EAGAIN) || !(fl->fl_flags & FL_SLEEP))
> + if (error != FILE_LOCK_ASYNC)
> break;
> error = wait_event_interruptible(fl->fl_wait, !fl->fl_next);
> if (!error)
> @@ -1806,7 +1806,7 @@ again:
> else {
> for (;;) {
> error = posix_lock_file(filp, file_lock, NULL);
> - if (error != -EAGAIN || cmd == F_SETLK)
> + if (error != FILE_LOCK_ASYNC)
> break;
> error = wait_event_interruptible(file_lock->fl_wait,
> !file_lock->fl_next);
> @@ -1934,7 +1934,7 @@ again:
> else {
> for (;;) {
> error = posix_lock_file(filp, file_lock, NULL);
> - if (error != -EAGAIN || cmd == F_SETLK64)
> + if (error != FILE_LOCK_ASYNC)
> break;
> error = wait_event_interruptible(file_lock->fl_wait,
> !file_lock->fl_next);
> Index: linux-2.6/fs/gfs2/locking/dlm/plock.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.orig/fs/gfs2/locking/dlm/plock.c 2008-04-09 16:44:15.000000000 +0200
> +++ linux-2.6/fs/gfs2/locking/dlm/plock.c 2008-04-14 22:54:05.000000000 +0200
> @@ -108,7 +108,7 @@ int gdlm_plock(void *lockspace, struct l
> if (xop->callback == NULL)
> wait_event(recv_wq, (op->done != 0));
> else
> - return -EINPROGRESS;
> + return FILE_LOCK_ASYNC;
>
> spin_lock(&ops_lock);
> if (!list_empty(&op->list)) {
> Index: linux-2.6/fs/lockd/svclock.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.orig/fs/lockd/svclock.c 2008-04-09 16:44:18.000000000 +0200
> +++ linux-2.6/fs/lockd/svclock.c 2008-04-14 22:55:20.000000000 +0200
> @@ -423,8 +423,8 @@ nlmsvc_lock(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, stru
> goto out;
> case -EAGAIN:
> ret = nlm_lck_denied;
> - break;
> - case -EINPROGRESS:
> + goto out;
> + case FILE_LOCK_ASYNC:
> if (wait)
> break;
> /* Filesystem lock operation is in progress
> @@ -439,10 +439,6 @@ nlmsvc_lock(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, stru
> goto out;
> }
>
> - ret = nlm_lck_denied;
> - if (!wait)
> - goto out;
> -
> ret = nlm_lck_blocked;
>
> /* Append to list of blocked */
> @@ -520,7 +516,7 @@ nlmsvc_testlock(struct svc_rqst *rqstp,
> }
>
> error = vfs_test_lock(file->f_file, &lock->fl);
> - if (error == -EINPROGRESS) {
> + if (error == FILE_LOCK_ASYNC) {
> ret = nlmsvc_defer_lock_rqst(rqstp, block);
> goto out;
> }
> @@ -744,8 +740,7 @@ nlmsvc_grant_blocked(struct nlm_block *b
> switch (error) {
> case 0:
> break;
> - case -EAGAIN:
> - case -EINPROGRESS:
> + case FILE_LOCK_ASYNC:
> dprintk("lockd: lock still blocked error %d\n", error);
> nlmsvc_insert_block(block, NLM_NEVER);
> nlmsvc_release_block(block);
> Index: linux-2.6/include/linux/fs.h
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.orig/include/linux/fs.h 2008-04-09 16:44:54.000000000 +0200
> +++ linux-2.6/include/linux/fs.h 2008-04-14 23:03:03.000000000 +0200
> @@ -837,6 +837,21 @@ extern spinlock_t files_lock;
> #define FL_SLEEP 128 /* A blocking lock */
>
> /*
> + * FILE_LOCK_ASYNC:
> + *
> + * Special return value from posix_lock_file() and vfs_lock_file()
> + * for asynchronous locking.
> + *
> + * For posix_lock_file() it means, that the lock has been queued on
> + * the block list.
> + *
> + * For vfs_lock_file() it means, that the filesystem will call back
> + * either fl_notify() or fl_granted() when the lock needs to be
> + * retried or if it has been granted.
> + */
> +#define FILE_LOCK_ASYNC 1
> +
> +/*
> * The POSIX file lock owner is determined by
> * the "struct files_struct" in the thread group
> * (or NULL for no owner - BSD locks).
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
