On May. 10, 2010, 22:01 +0300, "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 05:15:43PM +0300, Benny Halevy wrote: >> On May. 09, 2010, 19:55 +0300, "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On Sun, May 09, 2010 at 09:30:31AM +0300, Benny Halevy wrote: >>>> Correct. The intentions are: >>>> 1. Make the laundromat process ignore clients that are in >>>> use by a 4.1 session. >>>> 2. Renew the client when the compound ends, rather than when it begins. >>>> 3. Unhash the client when it's expired explicitly but don't destroy it >>>> until there's no reference to it. >>> OK. My one slight worry there is to make sure that code getting a >>> pointer to a client through a sessionid won't inadvertently assume it's >>> still hashed. >> That's a good point. >> In fact, the client should not be renewed when the compound is done >> if it was already explicitly expired. > > Hm, and we've still got a lot of renew_client()'s sprinkled around that > will try to add the expired client back to client_lru. > For that I've already have a fix in my branch to not renew the client if it's marked as expired (cl_time == 0). >> Another way to deal with this which may be safer but is less optimal >> is to keep only the sessionid and look it up on each use. Then, using >> it while holding the state lock will make sure it's valid when used. > > That seems overkill. Instead of making ops look up the sessionid from > state each time I guess we could have a revalidate_sessionid() that > checked the associated client to see if it was still good. > Yeah. Let me see if this is a quick fix and if so I'll send it as part of version 2 of this patchset, otherwise I'll send it as is. > If we continue to reduce the scope of the state lock, isn't that going > to be a pain, though? Will we end up having to do that sort of > revalidation every time we drop the state lock and reacquire it? It's very little pain, just verifying that cl_time != 0. > > Perhaps the simplest would be to make the clientid-destroyer wait; it > could set some sort of CLIENTID_DEAD flag on the client, wait for a > reference count to go to zero, then destroy the client. > I'm not sure about this. Setting this flag is equivalent to what I propose to do today (with marking the client as expired AND unhashing it) as you want to prevent any more references to it. The question is more about the semantics of the operation that explicitly destroys the old client, e.g. EXCHANGE_ID or DESTROY_SESSION. Can the client tolerate responses for the old clientid/sessionid after the client-destroying operation has succeeded? > Then other code would be guaranteed that nothing will change underneath > them as long as they hold either the state lock or a reference to a > session. > > So hopefully we'd only need worry about client shutdown in well-defined > places: > - when put()'ing a session, to check whether the client > is ready to be destroyed now. That's in v2. > - when looking up a session, in which case we should check > whether the client is dead and fail the lookup? If the client is dead we won't find the sessionid as we unhash the session structure atomically with the client so that isn't an issue so that's also dealt with in v2. Benny > > --b. > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
