On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 11:02:56AM -0400, Olga Kornievskaia wrote: > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 10:07 AM, J. Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 05:14:29PM -0400, Olga Kornievskaia wrote: > >> On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 11:58 AM, J. Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 10:53:13AM -0400, Olga Kornievskaia wrote: > >> >> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 2:38 PM, J. Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >> > On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 01:29:43PM -0400, Olga Kornievskaia wrote: > >> >> >> Upon receiving OFFLOAD_CANCEL search the list of copy stateids, > >> >> >> if found mark it cancelled. If copy has more interations to > >> >> >> call vfs_copy_file_range, it'll stop it. Server won't be sending > >> >> >> CB_OFFLOAD to the client since it received a cancel. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Olga Kornievskaia <kolga@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> >> >> --- > >> >> >> fs/nfsd/nfs4proc.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-- > >> >> >> fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++ > >> >> >> fs/nfsd/state.h | 4 ++++ > >> >> >> 3 files changed, 44 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > >> >> >> > >> >> >> diff --git a/fs/nfsd/nfs4proc.c b/fs/nfsd/nfs4proc.c > >> >> >> index 3cddebb..f4f3d93 100644 > >> >> >> --- a/fs/nfsd/nfs4proc.c > >> >> >> +++ b/fs/nfsd/nfs4proc.c > >> >> >> @@ -1139,6 +1139,7 @@ static int _nfsd_copy_file_range(struct nfsd4_copy *copy) > >> >> >> size_t bytes_to_copy; > >> >> >> u64 src_pos = copy->cp_src_pos; > >> >> >> u64 dst_pos = copy->cp_dst_pos; > >> >> >> + bool cancelled = false; > >> >> >> > >> >> >> do { > >> >> >> bytes_to_copy = min_t(u64, bytes_total, MAX_RW_COUNT); > >> >> >> @@ -1150,7 +1151,12 @@ static int _nfsd_copy_file_range(struct nfsd4_copy *copy) > >> >> >> copy->cp_res.wr_bytes_written += bytes_copied; > >> >> >> src_pos += bytes_copied; > >> >> >> dst_pos += bytes_copied; > >> >> >> - } while (bytes_total > 0 && !copy->cp_synchronous); > >> >> >> + if (!copy->cp_synchronous) { > >> >> >> + spin_lock(©->cps->cp_lock); > >> >> >> + cancelled = copy->cps->cp_cancelled; > >> >> >> + spin_unlock(©->cps->cp_lock); > >> >> >> + } > >> >> >> + } while (bytes_total > 0 && !copy->cp_synchronous && !cancelled); > >> >> >> return bytes_copied; > >> >> > > >> >> > I'd rather we sent a signal, and then we won't need this > >> >> > logic--vfs_copy_range() will just return EINTR or something. > >> >> > >> >> Hi Bruce, > >> >> > >> >> Now that I've implemented using the kthread instead of the workqueue, > >> >> I don't see that it can provide any better guarantee than the work > >> >> queue. vfs_copy_range() is not interrupted in the middle and returning > >> >> the EINTR. The function that runs the kthread, it has to at some point > >> >> call signalled()/kthread_should_stop() function to see if it was > >> >> signaled and use it to 'stop working instead of continuing on'. > >> >> > >> >> If I were to remove the loop and check (if signaled() || > >> >> kthread_should_stop()) before and after calling the > >> >> vfs_copy_file_range(), the copy will either not start if the > >> >> OFFLOAD_CANCEL was received before copy started or the whole copy > >> >> would happen. > >> >> > >> >> Even with the loop, I'd be checking after every call for > >> >> vfs_copy_file_range() just like it was in the current version with the > >> >> workqueue. > >> >> > >> >> Please advise if you still want the kthread-based implementation or > >> >> keep the workqueue. > >> > > >> > That's interesting. > >> > > >> > To me that sounds like a bug somewhere under vfs_copy_file_range(). > >> > splice_direct_to_actor() can do long-running copies, so it should be > >> > interruptible, shouldn't it? > >> > >> So I found it. Yes do_splice_direct() will react to somebody sending a > >> ctrl-c and will stop. It calls signal_pendning(). However, in our > >> case, I'm calling kthread_stop() and that sets a different flag and > >> one needs to also check for kthread_should_stop() as a stopping > >> condition. splice.c lacks that. > >> > >> I hope they can agree that it's a bug. I don't have any luck with VFS... > > > > Argh. No, it's probably not their bug, I guess kthreads just ignore > > signals. OK, I can't immediately see what the right thing to do is > > here.... > > > > I do think we need to do something as we want to be able to interrupt > > and clean up copy threads when we can. > > A bug is not the right word. It would be asking them to accommodate > stopping to include kthread_stop condition. Why do you say kthreads > ignore signals? You can say that kthread_stop doesn't send a signal. I think both are true. I doubt it's reasonable to add kthread_should_stop everywhere that there are currently checks for signals. > Also another note, I still can't remove the loop around the call to > the vfs_copy_file_range() because it's not guaranteed to copy all the > bytes that the call asks for. The implementation of > vfs_copy_file_range will do_splice_direct only MAX_RW_COUNT at a time. > So the upper layer needs to loop to make sure it copies all the bytes. MAX_RW_COUNT is about 4 gigs. I'm not sure if it's really a problem to copy only 4 gigs at a time? But, yes, maybe the loop is still worth it. > If VFS will decide to reject the request to add kthread_should_stop to > their conditions, then the loop could be a way to stop every 4MB. > Copying 4MB would be the equivalent of what the current synchronous > copy does now anyway? I'm still a little worried about copy threads hanging indefinitely if the peer goes away mid-copy. The ability to signal the copy thread would help. --b. -- 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