On Thu, 2011-03-24 at 18:37 +0200, Benny Halevy wrote:
> On 2011-03-24 15:57, William A. (Andy) Adamson wrote:
> >>> Only whole file layout support means that there is only one IOMODE_RW layout
> >>> segment.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Andy Adamson <andros@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Alexandros Batsakis <batsakis@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Dean Hildebrand <dhildeb@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Fred Isaman <iisaman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Mingyang Guo <guomingyang@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Tao Guo <guotao@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Zhang Jingwang <zhangjingwang@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> Tested-by: Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Benny Halevy <bhalevy@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >> The code in this patch is new and different enough from the one I/we
> >> signed-off originally that they don't make sense here.
> >
> > Hi Benny
> >
> > OK with me
> >
> >>>
> >>> + /* references matched in nfs4_layoutcommit_release */
> >>> + wdata->lseg->pls_lc_cred =
> >>> + get_rpccred(wdata->args.context->state->owner->so_cred);
> >>> + mark_inode_dirty_sync(wdata->inode);
> >>> + dprintk("%s: Set layoutcommit for inode %lu ",
> >>> + __func__, wdata->inode->i_ino);
> >>> + }
> >>> + if (end_pos > wdata->lseg->pls_end_pos)
> >>> + wdata->lseg->pls_end_pos = end_pos;
> >>
> >> The end_pos is essentially per inode, why maintain it per lseg?
> >> How do you see this working with multiple lsegs in mind?
> >
> > The end-pos is per lseg, not per inode - each layoutcommit applies to
> > a range of WRITES for a layoutsegment over the LAYOUTCOMMIT range.
> >
> > From Section 18.42.3
> > . The byte-range being committed is
> > specified through the byte-range (loca_offset and loca_length). This
> > byte-range MUST overlap with one or more existing layouts previously
> > granted via LAYOUTGET
> >
> >
> > Also, loca_last_write_offset MUST overlap the range
> > described by loca_offset and loca_length.
> >
> > For the multiple lseg case: if the lsegs are merged, bookeeping
> > end_pos per lseg just works. If a layoutdriver does not use merged
> > lsegs, then there is a bit of work to do to walk the list of lsegs and
> > determine the final end_pos for a given LAYOUTCOMMIT. If there are
> > multiple non-contiguous lsegs, each used for WRITEs then multiple
> > LAYOUTCOMMITs will need to be sent, otherwise the LAYOUTCOMMIT
> > byte-range will not overlap as required.
> >
>
> For the current layout types I believe that the LAYOUTCOMMIT can "merge"
> multiple layout segments into a single LAYOUTCOMMIT, with a byte range
> covering all segments and a last_byte_written offset which is just the maximum.
> Future layout types may need this method though...
Is that safe?
What if I'm doing blocks and have written layout segment 1 & 3, but not
layout segment 2? I don't want to have the MDS commit layout segment 2,
and make the (lack of) data there visible to future readers.
--
Trond Myklebust
Linux NFS client maintainer
NetApp
Trond.Myklebust@xxxxxxxxxx
www.netapp.com
--
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
