On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 10:15:06AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Fri, 2019-08-09 at 15:58 -0700, ira.weiny@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > From: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@xxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Add an exclusive lease flag which indicates that the layout mechanism
> > can not be broken.
> >
> > Exclusive layout leases allow the file system to know that pages may be
> > GUP pined and that attempts to change the layout, ie truncate, should be
> > failed.
> >
> > A process which attempts to break it's own exclusive lease gets an
> > EDEADLOCK return to help determine that this is likely a programming bug
> > vs someone else holding a resource.
.....
> > diff --git a/include/uapi/asm-generic/fcntl.h b/include/uapi/asm-generic/fcntl.h
> > index baddd54f3031..88b175ceccbc 100644
> > --- a/include/uapi/asm-generic/fcntl.h
> > +++ b/include/uapi/asm-generic/fcntl.h
> > @@ -176,6 +176,8 @@ struct f_owner_ex {
> >
> > #define F_LAYOUT 16 /* layout lease to allow longterm pins such as
> > RDMA */
> > +#define F_EXCLUSIVE 32 /* layout lease is exclusive */
> > + /* FIXME or shoudl this be F_EXLCK??? */
> >
> > /* operations for bsd flock(), also used by the kernel implementation */
> > #define LOCK_SH 1 /* shared lock */
>
> This interface just seems weird to me. The existing F_*LCK values aren't
> really set up to be flags, but are enumerated values (even if there are
> some gaps on some arches). For instance, on parisc and sparc:
I don't think we need to worry about this - the F_WRLCK version of
the layout lease should have these exclusive access semantics (i.e
other ops fail rather than block waiting for lease recall) and hence
the API shouldn't need a new flag to specify them.
i.e. the primary difference between F_RDLCK and F_WRLCK layout
leases is that the F_RDLCK is a shared, co-operative lease model
where only delays in operations will be seen, while F_WRLCK is a
"guarantee exclusive access and I don't care what it breaks"
model... :)
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
