Message-ID: <20080108111348.48e47892@tleilax.poochiereds.net>
Date:	Tue, 8 Jan 2008 11:13:48 -0500
From:	Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
To:	Wendy Cheng <wcheng@...hat.com>
Cc:	Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] NLM: Add reference counting to lockd

On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 10:52:19 -0500
Wendy Cheng <wcheng@...hat.com> wrote:

> Jeff Layton wrote:
> >
> >> The previous patch removes a kill_proc(... SIGKILL),  this one
> >> adds it back.
> >> That makes me wonder if the intermediate state is 'correct'.
> >>
> >> But I also wonder what "correct" means.
> >> Do we want all locks to be dropped when the last nfsd thread dies?
> >> The answer is presumably either "yes" or "no".
> >> If "yes", then we don't have that because if there are any NFS
> >> mounts active, lockd will not be killed.
> >> If "no", then we don't want this kill_proc here.
> >>
> >> The comment in lockd() which currently reads:
> >>
> >> 	/*
> >> 	 * The main request loop. We don't terminate until the last
> >> 	 * NFS mount or NFS daemon has gone away, and we've been
> >> sent a
> >> 	 * signal, or else another process has taken over our job.
> >> 	 */
> >>
> >> suggests that someone once thought that lockd could hang around
> >> after all nfsd threads and nfs mounts had gone, but I don't think
> >> it does.
> >>
> >> We really should think this through and get it right, because if
> >> lockd ever drops it's locks, then we really need to make sure
> >> sm_notify gets run.  So it needs to be a well defined event.
> >>
> >> Thoughts?
> >>
> >>     
> >
> > This is the part I've been struggling with the most -- defining what
> > proper behavior should be when lockd is restarted. As you point out,
> > restarting lockd without doing a sm_notify could be bad news for
> > data integrity.
> >
> > Then again, we'd like someone to be able to shut down the NFS
> > "service" and be able to unmount underlying filesystems without
> > jumping through special hoops....
> >
> > Overall, I think I'd vote "yes". We need to drop locks when the last
> > nfsd goes down. If userspace brings down nfsd, then it's userspace's
> > responsibility to make sure that a sm_notify is sent when nfsd and
> > lockd are restarted.
> >   
> 
> I would vote for "no", at least for nfs v3. Shutting down lockd would 
> require clients to reclaim the locks. With current status (protocol, 
> design, and even the implementation itself, etc), it is simply too 
> disruptive. I understand current logic (i.e. shutting down nfsd but 
> leaving lockd alone) is awkward but debugging multiple platforms 
> (remember clients may not be on linux boxes) is very non-trivial.
> 

The current lockd implementation already drops all locks if nfsd goes
down (providing there are no local NFS mounts). The last lockd_down call
will bring down lockd and it will drop all of its locks in the process.
My vote for "yes" is a vote to keep things the way they are. I don't
think I'd consider it disruptive.

Changing lockd to not drop locks will mean that userspace will need to
take extra steps if someone wants to bring down NFS and unmount an
underlying filesystem. Those extra steps could be a SIGKILL to lockd or
a call into the new interfaces your recent patchset adds. Either way,
that would mean a change in behavior that will have to be accounted for
in userspace.

-- 
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists