Date:	Fri, 11 Oct 2013 10:07:30 -0700
From:	"Frank Filz" <ffilzlnx@...dspring.com>
To:	"'Jeff Layton'" <jlayton@...hat.com>
Cc:	<linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<nfs-ganesha-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
	<samba-technical@...ts.samba.org>
Subject: RE: [RFC PATCH 0/5] locks: implement "filp-private" (aka UNPOSIX) locks

> > > > At LSF this year, there was a discussion about the "wishlist" for
> > > > userland file servers. One of the things brought up was the goofy
> > > > and problematic behavior of POSIX locks when a file is closed.
> > > > Boaz started a thread on it here:
> > > >
> > > >     http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.file-systems/73364
> > > >
> > > > Userland fileservers often need to maintain more than one open
> > > > file descriptor on a file. The POSIX spec says:
> > > >
> > > > "All locks associated with a file for a given process shall be
> > > > removed when a file descriptor for that file is closed by that
> > > > process or the process holding that file descriptor terminates."
> > > >
> > > > This is problematic since you can't close any file descriptor
> > > > without dropping all your POSIX locks. Most userland file servers
> > > > therefore end up opening the file with more access than is really
> > > > necessary, and keeping fd's open for longer than is necessary to
work
> around this.
> > > >
> > > > This patchset is a first stab at an approach to address this
> > > > problem by adding two new l_type values -- F_RDLCKP and F_WRLCKP
> > > > (the 'P' is short for "private" -- I'm open to changing that if
> > > > you have a better mnemonic).
> > > >
> > > > For all intents and purposes these lock types act just like their
> > > > "non-P" counterpart. The difference is that they are only
> > > > implicitly released when the fd against which they were acquired
> > > > is closed. As a side effect, these locks cannot be merged with
> > > > "non-P" locks since they have different semantics on close.
> > > >
> > > > I've given this patchset some very basic smoke testing and it
> > > > seems to do the right thing, but it is still pretty rough. If this
> > > > looks reasonable I'll plan to do some documentation updates and
> > > > will take a stab at trying to get these new lock types added to
> > > > the POSIX spec (as HCH recommended).
> > > >
> > > > At this point, my main questions are:
> > > >
> > > > 1) does this look useful, particularly for fileserver implementors?
> > > >
> > > > 2) does this look OK API-wise? We could consider different "cmd"
> values
> > > >    or even different syscalls, but I figured this makes it clearer
that
> > > >    "P" and "non-P" locks will still conflict with one another.
> >
> > This is a good start.
> >
> > I'd prefer a model where the private locks are maintained even if all
> > file descriptors are closed and released on garbage collection when
> > the process terminates. The model presented would require a server to
> > potentially have at least two file descriptors open (the descriptor
> > originally used for the locks, and a descriptor used for current
> > access mode needed for some I/O operation). The server will also need
> > to "remember" to do all locks using the first file descriptor.
> >
> 
> That's sort of a non-starter, I think at least in Linux. If you have no
open file
> descriptor then you have nothing to hang the lock off of.
> That sort of interface sounds error-prone and "leaky" too. A long running
> process could easily end up leaking POSIX locks over time if you forget to
> explicitly unlock them.

There is a point there, however see below for discussion of file descriptor
resources.

> > Another thing that would be very useful for servers is to be able to
> > specify an arbitrary lock owner. Currently, Ganesha has to manage a
> > union of all locks held on a file and carefully pick it apart when a
> > client does an unlock. Allowing a process specified owner would allow
> > Ganesha (or other
> > servers) to have separate locks for each client lock owner.
> >
> 
> The trivial answer there would be to give each lockowner its own file
> descriptor, right?

Hmm, that would be a solution (of course that would imply that private locks
held by the same process but by different file descriptors would conflict
appropriately).

There is a resource issue though of how many file descriptors we have open.
Is there any practical limit on the number of file descriptors a process has
open? Can the kernel support 1000s of descriptors? How much resource does a
file descriptor take? Looks like a struct file isn't tiny, not quite sure
just how big it is.

There is also some consideration of how this interacts with share
reservations (where is that proposal going BTW?). But I don't think this
really introduces anything new. We still have to guess the best access mode
to open a file descriptor that will be used for locks no matter how we
implement this.

So I guess my big concern is the resource impact of lots of file
descriptors.

Frank

--
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