On Tue, 2016-06-07 at 17:46 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 06:38:11AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > Currently, the layout driver selection code attempts to divine meaning
> > from the order of the layout driver list sent by the server.
> > Unfortunately, the spec doesn't place any significance on the order
> > and the server is free to send them in any order it likes.
> >
> > Instead, set a list of preferred driver types in the kernel and have
> > the selection code try them in order until it finds one that can be
> > loaded.
> >
> > If we go through the whole list of preferred drivers and don't find one,
> > then try any that weren't recognized in the first scan. This should
> > allow the use of 3rd party and experimental drivers without needing to
> > muck with the order of preference.
> >
> > For now, the order of preference is hardcoded, but it should be possible
> > to make this configurable (via module param perhaps?).
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jeff.layton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > fs/nfs/pnfs.c | 71 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------
> > 1 file changed, 50 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/nfs/pnfs.c b/fs/nfs/pnfs.c
> > index b02cad9c04bf..3ec5f2b392b6 100644
> > --- a/fs/nfs/pnfs.c
> > +++ b/fs/nfs/pnfs.c
> > @@ -99,6 +99,21 @@ unset_pnfs_layoutdriver(struct nfs_server *nfss)
> > }
> >
> > /*
> > + * When the server sends a list of layout types, we choose one in the order
> > + * given in the list below.
> > + *
> > + * FIXME: should this list be configurable via module_param or something?
> > + */
> > +static const u32 ld_prefs[] = {
> > + LAYOUT_SCSI,
> > + LAYOUT_BLOCK_VOLUME,
> > + LAYOUT_OSD2_OBJECTS,
> > + LAYOUT_FLEX_FILES,
> > + LAYOUT_NFSV4_1_FILES,
> > + 0
> > +};
> > +
> > +/*
> > * Try to set the server's pnfs module to the pnfs layout type specified by id.
> > * Currently only one pNFS layout driver per filesystem is supported.
> > *
> > @@ -110,7 +125,7 @@ set_pnfs_layoutdriver(struct nfs_server *server, const struct nfs_fh *mntfh,
> > {
> > struct pnfs_layoutdriver_type *ld_type = NULL;
> > u32 id;
> > - int i;
> > + int i, j;
> >
> > if (!(server->nfs_client->cl_exchange_flags &
> > (EXCHGID4_FLAG_USE_NON_PNFS | EXCHGID4_FLAG_USE_PNFS_MDS))) {
> > @@ -118,31 +133,45 @@ set_pnfs_layoutdriver(struct nfs_server *server, const struct nfs_fh *mntfh,
> > __func__, server->nfs_client->cl_exchange_flags);
> > goto out_no_driver;
> > }
> > - /*
> > - * If server supports more than one layout types.
> > - * By assuming, that server will put 'common default' as the first
> > - * entry, try all following entries ibefore and fall back to the default
> > - * if we did not found a matching one.
> > - */
> > - for(i = 1; i < NFS_MAX_LAYOUT_TYPES && ids[i] != 0; i++) {
> > - id = ids[i];
> > - request_module("%s-%u", LAYOUT_NFSV4_1_MODULE_PREFIX, id);
> > - ld_type = find_pnfs_driver(id);
> > - if(ld_type)
> > - goto found_module;
> >
> > - dprintk("%s: No pNFS module found for %u.\n", __func__, id);
> > + /* scan the list for each layout type in order of preference */
> > + for (j = 0; ld_prefs[j] != 0; j++) {
> > + for (i = 0; i < NFS_MAX_LAYOUT_TYPES && ids[i] != 0; i++) {
> > + id = ids[i];
> > +
> > + if (ld_prefs[j] == id) {
> > + request_module("%s-%u", LAYOUT_NFSV4_1_MODULE_PREFIX, id);
> > + ld_type = find_pnfs_driver(id);
> > + if (ld_type)
> > + goto found_module;
> > + }
> > + }
> > }
> >
> > - /*
> > - * no other layout types found. Try default one.
> > - */
> > - id = ids[0];
> > - request_module("%s-%u", LAYOUT_NFSV4_1_MODULE_PREFIX, id);
> > - ld_type = find_pnfs_driver(id);
> > + /* didn't find one -- make sure we try any that weren't in ld_prefs */
> > + for (i = 0; i < NFS_MAX_LAYOUT_TYPES && ids[i] != 0; i++) {
> > + bool match = false;
> > +
> > + id = ids[i];
> > +
> > + /* Was it in the prefs list? */
> > + for (j = 0; ld_prefs[j] != 0; j++) {
> > + if (ld_prefs[j] != id) {
> > + match = true;
> > + break;
> > + }
> > + }
>
> This logic feels more complicated than necessary.
>
> We're going out of our way to support (at this point purely theoretical)
> 3rd-party layout modules. When new layouts are develop, the chance
> they'll be implementable with *no* changes to kernel code outside that
> module seem small, and once you have to touch other code you may as well
> update ld_prefs.
>
> But anyway, if we want this, it might be easier to follow with logic
> like:
>
> 1. sort the ids[] array so the known layouts are at the top, in
> ld_prefs order.
> 2. try request_module() and find_pnfs_driver() in order on
> the sorted ids[] array.
>
> --b.
>
That's possible, but I'm not sure that will really make the code any
less complicated. I'll see what I can come up with.
> > +
> > + if (!match) {
> > + request_module("%s-%u", LAYOUT_NFSV4_1_MODULE_PREFIX, id);
> > + ld_type = find_pnfs_driver(id);
> > + if (ld_type)
> > + goto found_module;
> > + }
> > + }
> >
> > if (!ld_type) {
> > - dprintk("%s: No pNFS module found for %u.\n", __func__, id);
> > + dprintk("%s: No pNFS module found!\n", __func__);
> > goto out_no_driver;
> > }
> >
> > --
> > 2.5.5
--
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
