On Wed, 2021-08-04 at 09:47 +1000, NeilBrown wrote: > On Wed, 04 Aug 2021, Trond Myklebust wrote: > > On Tue, 2021-08-03 at 17:36 -0400, bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 03, 2021 at 09:07:11PM +0000, Trond Myklebust wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2021-08-03 at 16:30 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Jul 30, 2021 at 02:48:41PM +0000, Trond Myklebust > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, 2021-07-30 at 09:25 -0400, Benjamin Coddington > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > I have some folks unhappy about behavior changes after: > > > > > > > 479219218fbe > > > > > > > NFS: > > > > > > > Optimise away the close-to-open GETATTR when we have > > > > > > > NFSv4 > > > > > > > OPEN > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Before this change, a client holding a RO open would > > > > > > > invalidate > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > pagecache when doing a second RW open. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now the client doesn't invalidate the pagecache, though > > > > > > > technically > > > > > > > it could > > > > > > > because we see a changeattr update on the RW OPEN > > > > > > > response. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I feel this is a grey area in CTO if we're already > > > > > > > holding an > > > > > > > open. > > > > > > > Do we > > > > > > > know how the client ought to behave in this case? Should > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > client's open > > > > > > > upgrade to RW invalidate the pagecache? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's not a "grey area in close-to-open" at all. It is very > > > > > > cut > > > > > > and > > > > > > dried. > > > > > > > > > > > > If you need to invalidate your page cache while the file is > > > > > > open, > > > > > > then > > > > > > by definition you are in a situation where there is a write > > > > > > by > > > > > > another > > > > > > client going on while you are reading. You're clearly not > > > > > > doing > > > > > > close- > > > > > > to-open. > > > > > > > > > > Documentation is really unclear about this case. Every > > > > > definition of > > > > > close-to-open that I've seen says that it requires a cache > > > > > consistency > > > > > check on every application open. I've never seen one that > > > > > says > > > > > "on > > > > > every open that doesn't overlap with an already-existing open > > > > > on > > > > > that > > > > > client". > > > > > > > > > > They *usually* also preface that by saying that this is > > > > > motivated > > > > > by > > > > > the > > > > > use case where opens don't overlap. But it's never made > > > > > clear > > > > > that > > > > > that's part of the definition. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not following your logic. > > > > > > It's just a question of what every source I can find says close- > > > to- > > > open > > > means. E.g., NFS Illustrated, p. 248, "Close-to-open consistency > > > provides a guarantee of cache consistency at the level of file > > > opens > > > and > > > closes. When a file is closed by an application, the client > > > flushes > > > any > > > cached changs to the server. When a file is opened, the client > > > ignores > > > any cache time remaining (if the file data are cached) and makes > > > an > > > explicit GETATTR call to the server to check the file > > > modification > > > time." > > > > > > > The close-to-open model assumes that the file is only being > > > > modified by > > > > one client at a time and it assumes that file contents may be > > > > cached > > > > while an application is holding it open. > > > > The point checks exist in order to detect if the file is being > > > > changed > > > > when the file is not open. > > > > > > > > Linux does not have a per-application cache. It has a page > > > > cache > > > > that > > > > is shared among all applications. It is impossible for two > > > > applications > > > > to open the same file using buffered I/O, and yet see different > > > > contents. > > > > > > Right, so based on the descriptions like the one above, I would > > > have > > > expected both applications to see new data at that point. > > > > Why? That would be a clear violation of the close-to-open rule that > > nobody else can write to the file while it is open. > > > > Is the rule > A - "it is not permitted for any other application/client to write > to > the file while another has it open" > or > B - "it is not expected for any other application/client to write to > the file while another has it open" > > I think B, because A is clearly not enforced. That suggests that > there > is no *need* to check for changes, but equally there is no barrier to > checking for changes. So that fact that one application has the file > open should not prevent a check when another application opens the > file. > Equally it should not prevent a flush when some other application > closes > the file. > > It is somewhat weird that if an application on one client misbehaves > by > keeping a file open, that will prevent other applications on the same > client from seeing non-local changes, but will not prevent > applications > on other clients from seeing any changes. > > NeilBrown No. What you propose is to optimise for a fringe case, which we cannot guarantee will work anyway. I'd much rather optimise for the common case, which is the only case with predictable semantics. -- Trond Myklebust Linux NFS client maintainer, Hammerspace trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
