I think it is how close-to-open has been traditionally understood. I do not believe that close-to-open in any way implies a single writer, rather it sets the consistency expectation for all readers. Matt On Tue, Aug 3, 2021 at 5:36 PM bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx <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. > > Maybe that's not practical to implement. It'd be nice at least if that > was explicit in the documentation. > > --b. > -- Matt Benjamin Red Hat, Inc. 315 West Huron Street, Suite 140A Ann Arbor, Michigan 48103 http://www.redhat.com/en/technologies/storage tel. 734-821-5101 fax. 734-769-8938 cel. 734-216-5309
