On Wed, 12 Jun 2024, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 02:09:21PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
> > On Wed, 12 Jun 2024, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 01:17:05PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 12 Jun 2024, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > SO I looked, and I'm saddened to see Neil's 6.8 commit 1e3577a4521e
> > > > > ("SUNRPC: discard sv_refcnt, and svc_get/svc_put").
> > > > >
> > > > > [the lack of useful refcounting with the current code kind of blew me
> > > > > away.. but nice to see it existed not too long ago.]
> > > > >
> > > > > Rather than immediately invest the effort to revert commit
> > > > > 1e3577a4521e for my apparent needs... I'll send out v2 to allow for
> > > > > further review and discussion.
> > > > >
> > > > > But it really does feel like I _need_ svc_{get,put} and nfsd_{get,put}
> > > >
> > > > You are taking a reference, and at the right time. But it is to the
> > > > wrong thing.
> > >
> > > Well, that reference is to ensure nfsd (and nfsd_open_local_fh) is
> > > available for the duration of a local client connected to it.
> > >
> > > Really wasn't trying to keep nn->nfsd_serv around with this ;)
> > >
> > > > You call symbol_request(nfsd_open_local_fh) and so get a reference to
> > > > the nfsd module. But you really want a reference to the nfsd service.
> > > >
> > > > I would suggest that you use symbol_request() to get a function which
> > > > you then call and immediately symbol_put().... unless you need to use it
> > > > to discard the reference to the service later.
> > >
> > > Getting the nfsd_open_local_fh symbol once when client handshakes with
> > > server is meant to avoid needing to do so for every IO the client
> > > issues to the local server.
> > >
> > > > The function would take nfsd_mutex, check there is an nfsd_serv, sets a
> > > > flag or whatever to indicate the serv is being used for local_io, and
> > > > maybe returns the nfsd_serv. As long as that flag is set the serv
> > > > cannot be destroy.
> > > >
> > > > Do you need there to be available threads for LOCAL_IO to work? If so
> > > > the flag would cause setting the num threads to zero to fail.
> > > > If not .... that is weird. It would mean that setting the number of
> > > > threads to zero would not destroy the service and I don't think we want
> > > > to do that.
> > > >
> > > > So I think that when LOCAL_IO is in use, setting number of threads to
> > > > zero must return EBUSY or similar, even if you don't need the threads.
> > >
> > > Yes, but I really dislike needing to play games with a tangential
> > > characteristic of nfsd_serv (that threads are what hold reference),
> > > rather than have the ability to keep the nfsd_serv around in a cleaner
> > > way.
> > >
> > > This localio code doesn't run in nfsd context so it isn't using nfsd's
> > > threads. Forcing threads to be held in reserve because localio doesn't
> > > want nfsd_serv to go away isn't ideal.
> >
> > I started reading the rest of the patches and it seems that localio is
> > only used for READ, WRTE, COMMIT. Is that correct? Is there
> > documentation so that I don't have to ask?
>
> The header for v2's patch 7 (nfs/nfsd: add "localio" support) starts with:
> Add client support for bypassing NFS for localhost reads, writes, and
> commits.
>
> But I should've made it clearer by saying the same in the 0th header.
Or maybe even a something to Documentation/ which describes your new
side-protocol including how the UUIDs are used and what happens when a
match is found..
>
> > Obviously there are lots of other NFS requests so you wouldn't be able
> > to use localio without nfsd threads running....
>
> That's very true.
>
> > But a normal remote client doesn't pin the nfsd threads or the
> > nfsd_serv. If the threads go away, the client blocks until the service
> > comes back. Would that be appropriate semantics for localio?? i.e. on
> > each nfsd_open_local_fh() call you mutex_trylock and hold that long
> > enough to get the 'struct file *'. If it fails because there is no
> > serv, you simply fall-back to the same path you use for other requests.
> >
> > Could that work?
>
> I can try it, but feels like it'd elevate nfsd_mutex to "contended",
> as such it feels heavy.
>
> > > Does it maybe make sense to introduce a more narrow svc_get/svc_put
> > > for this auxillary usecase?
> >
> > I don't think so. nfsd is a self-contained transactional service. It
> > doesn't promise to persist beyond each transaction.
> > Current transactions return status and/or data. Adding a new transaction
> > that returns a 'struct file *' fits that model reasonable well.
>
> Sure. But to be clear, I am adding global state to nfs_common that
> tracks nfsd_uuids. Those change every time a new nfsd_net is created
> for a given server (client will then lookup the uuid to see if local).
>
I missed the full importance of this on my read-through. It would
certainly make sense for the NFS client to get a counted-reference to
something managed by nfs_common and created/destroyed by nfsd.
It could then easily check if the handle is still valid and repeat the
lookup only if the handle has been marked as invalid.
We still need a way for the filehande-to-struct-file lookup to proceed
without taking nfsd_mutex. Possibly we could use srcu and put a
synchronise_srcu() call at the top of nfsd_destroy_serv()...
>
> But even if we went to the extreme where nfsd instances are bouncing
> like crazy, the 'nfsd_uuids' list in nfs_common should work fine.
>
> Just not seeing what is gained by nfsd being so ephemeral. Maybe your
> point is, it should work in that model too?.. I think it would, just
> less efficiently due to make-work to re-get resources it needs.
Exactly. localio shouldn't prevent the nfsd server from being stopped
and restarted, but it needn't work efficiently when that is happening.
Thanks,
NeilBrown
