On Wed, Mar 06, 2019 at 09:09:21AM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote: > On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 11:48 PM J. Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 04:06:52PM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > > After this: > > > > > > https://marc.info/?l=linux-nfs&m=154966239918297&w=2 > > > > > > delegations would no longer conflict with opens from the same tgid. So > > > if your threads all run in the same process and you're willing to manage > > > conflicts among your own clients, that should still allow you to do > > > multiple opens of the same file without giving up your lease/delegation. > > > > > > I'd be curious to know whether that works with Samba's design. > > > > Any idea whether that would work? > > > > (Easy? Impossible? Possible, but realistically the changes required to > > Samba would be painful enough that it'd be unlikely to get done?) > > > > [CC Ralph Boehme] > > I am not a samba team member, but seems to me that your proposal > fits samba design like a glove. With one smbd process per client connection, > with your proposal, opens (for read) from same smbd process will not break the > shared read lease from same client, so oplocks level II could be implemented > using kernel oplocks (new flavor). OK. So I wonder about Ganesha. I'm not sure, but I *think* it's like knfsd in that it has a bunch of worker threads that can each take rpc's from any client. I don't remember if they're actually threads or processes. > IOW, can someone from samba team please elaborate on this quote > from samba wiki [1]: "Linux kernel oplocks don't provide the needed features. > (They don't even work correctly for oplocks...) ==> SMB-only feature." > > [1] https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Samba3/SMB2#new_concepts Yes, it'd be useful to get those details written down in one place. > I would like to use this opportunity to ask samba team members to raise > any (*) other pain points about missing or lacking Linux kernel interfaces. > I promise to use my time in LSF/MM 2019 to try and promote samba > needs among Linux filesystem developers. I feel like this particular problem is about details of oplock/lease/delegation semantics that will interest a small number of people, so should mainly be handled as a hallway-track thing. But, maybe it's good to bring it up in a session if only to make sure anyone interested is aware. > (*) OK, not RichACLs. I know my own limitations. Hah. --b.
