On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 2:20 PM, Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 1:40 PM, J. Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> If we assume no other writers until we close, couldn't you on close wait >> for all writes, send a final getattr for change attribute, and trust >> that? If the extra getattr's too much, then you'd need some algorithm >> like the above to determine which change attribute is the last. Or >> implement >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion2-41#section-12.2.3 >> on client and server and just track the maximum returned value when the >> server returns something other than NFS4_CHANGE_TYPE_IS_UNDEFINED. >> > > The correct tool to use for resolving these caching issues is > ultimately a write delegation. > > You can also eliminate a lot of invalidations if you know that the > server implements change_attr_type == > NFS4_CHANGE_TYPE_IS_VERSION_COUNTER or > NFS4_CHANGE_TYPE_IS_VERSION_COUNTER_NOPNFS, since that allows you to > predict what the attribute should be after a change. Thanks for all the info. But let me highlight that I was asking about v3. I don't see that the code has issues with cache invalidation for nfsv4 when receiving out-of-order RPCs. I am not sure if it's worth implementing something that Bruce suggests. I just wanted to make sure that what i'm seeing is "expected" behavior (caz it's v3) and not a bug. -- 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
