On Thu, 2016-06-02 at 09:12 +0200, Mkrtchyan, Tigran wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Jeff Layton" <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: "Trond Myklebust" <trondmy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-nfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Cc: "tigran mkrtchyan" <tigran.mkrtchyan@xxxxxxx>, "Anna Schumaker" <Anna.Schumaker@xxxxxxxxxx>, hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2016 11:53:03 PM
> > Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] nfs: allow nfs client to handle servers that hand out multiple layout types
>
> > On Tue, 2016-05-31 at 17:54 -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2016-05-31 at 21:41 +0000, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 5/31/16, 17:09, "Jeff Layton" <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Tue, 2016-05-31 at 16:03 +0000, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 5/30/16, 12:35, "Jeff Layton" <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Allow the client to deal with servers that hand out multiple layout
> > > > > > > types for the same filesystem. When this happens, we pick the "best" one,
> > > > > > > based on a hardcoded assumed order in the client code.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jeff.layton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > fs/nfs/client.c | 2 +-
> > > > > > > fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c | 2 +-
> > > > > > > fs/nfs/nfs4xdr.c | 41 +++++++++++++-------------
> > > > > > > fs/nfs/pnfs.c | 76 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
> > > > > > > include/linux/nfs_xdr.h | 2 +-
> > > > > > > 5 files changed, 85 insertions(+), 38 deletions(-)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > diff --git a/fs/nfs/client.c b/fs/nfs/client.c
> > > > > > > index 0c96528db94a..53b41f4bd45a 100644
> > > > > > > --- a/fs/nfs/client.c
> > > > > > > +++ b/fs/nfs/client.c
> > > > > > > @@ -787,7 +787,7 @@ int nfs_probe_fsinfo(struct nfs_server *server, struct
> > > > > > > nfs_fh *mntfh, struct nfs
> > > > > > > }
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > fsinfo.fattr = fattr;
> > > > > > > - fsinfo.layouttype = 0;
> > > > > > > + fsinfo.layouttypes = 0;
> > > > > > > error = clp->rpc_ops->fsinfo(server, mntfh, &fsinfo);
> > > > > > > if (error < 0)
> > > > > > > goto out_error;
> > > > > > > diff --git a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
> > > > > > > index de97567795a5..9446aef89b48 100644
> > > > > > > --- a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
> > > > > > > +++ b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
> > > > > > > @@ -4252,7 +4252,7 @@ static int nfs4_proc_fsinfo(struct nfs_server *server,
> > > > > > > struct nfs_fh *fhandle, s
> > > > > > > if (error == 0) {
> > > > > > > /* block layout checks this! */
> > > > > > > server->pnfs_blksize = fsinfo->blksize;
> > > > > > > - set_pnfs_layoutdriver(server, fhandle, fsinfo->layouttype);
> > > > > > > + set_pnfs_layoutdriver(server, fhandle, fsinfo->layouttypes);
> > > > > > > }
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > return error;
> > > > > > > diff --git a/fs/nfs/nfs4xdr.c b/fs/nfs/nfs4xdr.c
> > > > > > > index 661e753fe1c9..876a80802c1d 100644
> > > > > > > --- a/fs/nfs/nfs4xdr.c
> > > > > > > +++ b/fs/nfs/nfs4xdr.c
> > > > > > > @@ -4723,33 +4723,36 @@ static int decode_getfattr(struct xdr_stream *xdr,
> > > > > > > struct nfs_fattr *fattr,
> > > > > > > * Decode potentially multiple layout types. Currently we only support
> > > > > > > * one layout driver per file system.
> > > > > > > */
> > > > > > > -static int decode_first_pnfs_layout_type(struct xdr_stream *xdr,
> > > > > > > - uint32_t *layouttype)
> > > > > > > +static int decode_pnfs_layout_types(struct xdr_stream *xdr, u32 *layouttypes)
> > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > __be32 *p;
> > > > > > > int num;
> > > > > > > + u32 type;
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > p = xdr_inline_decode(xdr, 4);
> > > > > > > if (unlikely(!p))
> > > > > > > goto out_overflow;
> > > > > > > num = be32_to_cpup(p);
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - /* pNFS is not supported by the underlying file system */
> > > > > > > - if (num == 0) {
> > > > > > > - *layouttype = 0;
> > > > > > > - return 0;
> > > > > > > - }
> > > > > > > - if (num > 1)
> > > > > > > - printk(KERN_INFO "NFS: %s: Warning: Multiple pNFS layout "
> > > > > > > - "drivers per filesystem not supported\n", __func__);
> > > > > > > + *layouttypes = 0;
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - /* Decode and set first layout type, move xdr->p past unused types */
> > > > > > > - p = xdr_inline_decode(xdr, num * 4);
> > > > > > > - if (unlikely(!p))
> > > > > > > - goto out_overflow;
> > > > > > > - *layouttype = be32_to_cpup(p);
> > > > > > > + for (; num; --num) {
> > > > > > > + p = xdr_inline_decode(xdr, 4);
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > + if (unlikely(!p))
> > > > > > > + goto out_overflow;
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > + type = be32_to_cpup(p);
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > + /* Ignore any that we don't understand */
> > > > > > > + if (unlikely(type >= LAYOUT_TYPE_MAX))
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This will in effect hard code the layouts that the client supports.
> > > > > > LAYOUT_TYPE_MAX is something that applies to knfsd only for now.
> > > > > > Let’s not leak it into the client. I suggest just making this
> > > > > > 8*sizeof(*layouttypes).
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Fair enough. I'll make that change.
> > > > >
> > > > > That said...LAYOUT_TYPE_MAX is a value in the pnfs_layouttype enum, and
> > > > > that enum is used in both the client and the server code, AFAICT. If we
> > > > > add a new LAYOUT_* value to that enum for the client, then we'll need
> > > > > to increase that value anyway. So, I'm not sure I understand how this
> > > > > limits the client in any way...
> > > >
> > > > No, the client doesn’t use enum pnfs_layouttype anywhere. If you look
> > > > at set_pnfs_layoutdriver(), you’ll note that we currently support all
> > > > values for the layout type.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Ok, I see. So if someone were to (for instance) create a 3rd party
> > > layout driver module that had used a value above LAYOUT_TYPE_MAX then
> > > this would prevent it from working.
> > >
> > > Hmmm...so even if I make the change that you're suggesting, this will
> > > still limit the client to working with layout types that are below a
> > > value of 32. Is that also a problem? If so, then maybe I should respin
> > > this to be more like the one Tigran had: make an array or something to
> > > hold those values.
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> > >
> >
> > Yecchhhhh...ok after thinking about this, the whole out-of-tree layout
> > driver possibility really throws a wrench into this plan...
> >
> > Suppose someone creates such a layout driver, drops the module onto the
> > client and the core kernel knows nothing about it. With the current
> > patch, it'd be ignored. I don't think that's what we want though.
> >
> > Where should that driver fit in the selection order in
> > set_pnfs_layoutdriver?
> >
> > Tigran's patch had the client start with the second element and only
> > pick the first one in the list if nothing else worked. That's sort of
> > icky though.
> >
> > Another idea might be to just attempt unrecognized ones as the driver
> > of last resort, when no other driver has worked?
> >
> > Alternately, we could add a mount option or something that would affect
> > the selection order? If so, how should such an option work?
> >
> > I'm really open to suggestions here -- I've no idea what the right
> > thing to do is at this point...sigh.
>
>
> There are two things in my patch what I don't like:
>
> - an int array to store layouts, which mostly will be used by a single element only
> - server must know client implementation to achieve desired result
>
Meh, the array is not too big a deal. We only allocate a fsinfo struct
to handle the call. Once we've selected the layout type, it gets
discarded. The second problem is the bigger one, IMO.
> In your approach other two problems:
>
> - max layout type id 32
> - hard coded supported layout types and the order
>
Right, both are problems. For now, I'm not too worried about getting
_official_ layout type values that are above 32, but the spec says:
Types within the range 0x00000001-0x7FFFFFFF are
globally unique and are assigned according to the description in
Section 22.4; they are maintained by IANA. Types within the range
0x80000000-0xFFFFFFFF are site specific and for private use only.
So both of the above problems in my RFC patch make it difficult to
experiment with new layout types.
> Any of them will help in adoption of flexfile layout, especially if we get it into
> RHEL7.
>
> In discussion with Christoph Hellwig back in March, I have proposed a mount option:
>
> mount -o preferred_layout=nfs4_file,vers=4.1
>
> or may be even an nfs kernel module option.
>
> This will allow server to send layout in any order, but let client to re-order
> them by it's own rules.
>
Yeah, I was thinking something along the same lines.
The problem with a mount option is that you can transit to different
filesystems in multiple ways with NFS these days (referrals, etc...).
Propagating and handling mount options in those cases can quickly
become quite messy.
A module option to set the selection order might be best. For instance:
nfs4.pnfs_layout_order=0x80000006:scsi:block:object:flexfile:file
Then the client could pick the best one based on that order. The
default could be the order that I set up in the proposed patch (or
something else, fwiw).
Either way, I'd like Trond and/or Anna to weigh in on what they'd find
acceptable before we go down either of those roads.
--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
--
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
