On 06/09/2014 03:11 PM, John Muir wrote:
On 2014.06.09, at 12:46 , Maxim Patlasov <mpatla...@parallels.com> wrote:
On 06/09/2014 01:26 PM, John Muir wrote:
On 2014.06.09, at 9:50 , Maxim Patlasov <mpatla...@parallels.com> wrote:
On 06/06/2014 05:51 PM, John Muir wrote:
On 2014.06.06, at 15:27 , Maxim Patlasov <mpatla...@parallels.com> wrote:
The patch-set resolves the problem by making fuse_release synchronous:
wait for ACK from userspace for FUSE_RELEASE if the feature is ON.
Why not make this feature per-file with a new flag bit in struct fuse_file_info
rather than as a file-system global?
I don't expect a great demand for such a granularity. File-system global
"close_wait" conveys a general user expectation about filesystem behaviour in
distributed environment: if you stopped using a file on given node, whether it means that
the file is immediately accessible from another node.
By user do you mean the end-user, or the implementor of the file-system? It
seems to me that the end-user doesn't care, and just wants the file-system to
work as expected. I don't think we're really talking about the end-user.
No, this is exactly about end-user expectations. Imagine a complicated
heavy-loaded shared storage where handling FUSE_RELEASE in userspace may take a
few minutes. In close_wait=0 case, an end-user who has just called close(2) has
no idea when it's safe to access the file from another node or even when it's
OK to umount filesystem.
I think we're saying the same thing here from different perspectives. The
end-user wants the file-system to operate with the semantics you describe, but
I don't think it makes sense to give the end-user control over those semantics.
The file-system itself should be implemented that way, or not, or per-file
If it's a read-only file, then does this not add the overhead of having the
kernel wait for the user-space file-system process to respond before closing
it. In my experience, there is actually significant cost to the kernel to
user-space messaging in FUSE when manipulating thousands of files.
The implementor of a file-system, on the other hand, might want the semantics
for close_wait on some files, but not on others. Won't there be a performance
impact? Some distributed file-systems might want this on specific files only.
Implementing it as a flag on the struct fuse_file_info gives the flexibility to
the file-system implementor.
fuse_file_info is an userspace structure, in-kernel fuse knows nothing about
it. In close_wait=1 case, nothing prevents a file-system implementation from
ACK-ing FUSE_RELEASE request immediately (for specific files) and schedule
actual handling for future processing.
Of course you know I meant that you'd add another flag to both fuse_file_info, and
in the kernel equivalent for those flags which is struct fuse_open_out ->
open_flags. This is where other such per file options are specified such as
whether or not to keep the in-kernal cache for a file, whether or not to allow
direct-io, and whether or not to allow seek.
Anyway, I guess you're the one doing all the work on this and if you have a
particular implementation that doesn't require such fine-grained control, and
no one else does then it's up to you. I'm just trying to show an alternative
implementation that gives the file-system implementor more control while
keeping the ability to meet user expectations.
Thank you, John. That's really depends on whether someone else wants
fine-grained control or not. I'm generally OK to re-work the patch-set
if more requesters emerge.
Thanks,
Maxim
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
