On 2011-03-24 18:48, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> 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.
>
I'm not the real expert on pnfs-blocks but my interpretation of rfc5663 is that the
list of extents in pnfs_block_layoutupdate4 may be sparse (or holey if you'd like).
Note that the client may have written just parts of the layout it got in one layout segment.
In this case too, you don't want to send multiple LAYOUTCOMMITs for each contiguous
area...
Benny
--
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
