Cluster Coherent NFS and Byte Range Locking
From Linux NFS
Cluster Coherent NFS and Byte Range Locking
For some time, exporting byte-range locks to NFS has been a challenge in Linux. Support for file system locks was designed with a process model and a local file system in mind. This suggested a synchronous interface in which a process that requests a lock is either granted the lock or suspended and placed on a queue. When the lock becomes available, a suspended process is granted the lock and allowed to proceed.
This synchronous approach breaks down when the request is made by a server, e.g., LOCKD or NFSD, where threads are a scarce resource. The synchronous approach threatens to block the server process, which constitutes a disaster.
Hence an asynchronous lock request interface has emerged.
One of the complexities in making that transformation is a mechanism for queueing contending requests. The queue should be fair, not giving preference to one source of lock requests over another. Ideally, contending lock requests should be granted in the order in which they are issued. This argues for a single queue of pending requests, no matter their source of issue.
Cluster file systems exported with NFS introduce another layer of complexity: often they need to coordinate their locks with a lock manager in the back end. But back end coordination can be delayed, e.g., by inter-node communication, which poses another threat to a threaded server.
Finally, NFSv4 introduces one more layer of complexity: unlike NLM locks, which block, NFSv4 byte-range locks are non-blocking, so clients contending for a lock must poll. This raises the stakes for fair queueing, as a local process waiting for a lock will almost always acquire the contended lock before an NFSv4 client can.
NFSv4 Blocking Locks
Unlike NLM clients, NFSv4 clients do not receive a "grant" callback from the server when a lock becomes available. Instead, they poll the server to see if the blocked lock is available. This presents a fairness problem, because a local process waiting for the lock will almost always acquire the contended lock before an NFSv4 client.
To solve this problem, the NFSv4 spec suggests that the server should maintain an ordered list of pending blocking locks. To really solve the fairness problem, everyone that may wait on a lock (local processes, LOCKD, and the NFSv4 server) should share such an ordered list.
* Implement a shared blocking lock fair queue * Implement the NFSv4 server fl_notify and use the fair queue
We have written patches that change the semantics of the existing file_lock->fl_block queue to integrate it with the NFSv4 server and to make it more 'fair.' This queue holds all blocking locks in the order in which they were requested. New blockers are added to the tail.
Although these patches have not been reviewed by the wider kernel community, we have identified a number of spec and implementation problems along the way and had fixes incorporated into the Linux kernel and the new NFSv4.1 draft.
The existing fl_block semantics:
When the lock is released, we traverse the fl_block list and wake each blocker, resulting in a 'scrum' to get the lock. The winner then places all losers on its fl_block list. So, this queue is 'fair' in the sense that the blokers wake in order. It's not fair in the sense that LOCKD has bookeeping tasks to perform prior to actually grabbing the lock, giving local lockers an advantage. It's even worse for NFSv4; since NFSv4 clients must poll for blocking locks, the NFSv4 server is forced to wait for the client in question to poll again before it can attempt to acquire the lock.
The new 'fair' fl_block semantics:
We tried modifying the VFS lock code so that it actually *applies* all locks it can on behalf of the waiters. We wake those waiters whose locks succeed, and return others to the fl_block list.
We also added a kernel lock to protect the fl_block list during this processing. We immediately ran into a few problems:
* Claiming the lock means calling posix_lock_file which calls kmalloc which can sleep, not possible when under a spinlock; so we'd have to use a semaphore or mutex; but * For the purposes of mandatory lock checking, this new lock must be obtained in the read/write path to check for lock compliance, and adding a semaphore or mutex to the performance-critical read/write path is thought to be inefficient.
We investigated alternative locking schemes, however we soon identified a critical problem: an NFSv4 client that has been polling for a lock may stop polling at any time without notice (if, for example, someone signals the client process that is blocking on the lock). Therefore it is incorrect for the VFS code to grant a lock to waiter on our behalf, when it is possible that "waiter" may end up not actually wanting the lock.
If the server grants the lock early, and the client chooses not to poll again, then there is no way for the server to cancel the lock that it has already granted. (If the lock has downgraded or coalesced existing locks, then it may not be possible to undo its effect with a simple unlock.)
Correct support for blocking NFSv4 locks therefore *requires* the ability to apply a new kind of byte-range lock to the backend filesystem that allows us to temporarily block other lock requests, but that does not downgrade or coalesce existing posix locks, to allow us to later remove the lock safely if the client does not return.
Our patches add such a lock type to the VFS lock code. After these patches, the VFS lock code again walks through the fl_block list, applying those locks it can, and waking waiters for newly acquired locks. This time, however, we instead apply our new type of non-coalescing byte-range lock. We do not upgrade the lock to a real posix byte-range lock until the waiter wakes up and requests the lock, at which point we also give the waiter the option of cancelling the lock.
This has the added advantage of simplifying the kernel locking problems we saw with our previous scheme, since our new lock type is simple enough to be applied without requiring memory allocations.
As a side benefit of this work we also identified some problems with the NFSv4 protocol that we were able to fix:
* The NFSv4 protocol has no equivalent to the NLM "cancel" call. This means that when a client process stops blocking on a lock, the server may wait up to a lease period (typically about a minute) before giving up and allowing another waiting client to take the lock. We found a solution that is backwards compatible (and thus implementable by current NFSv4.0 clients and servers), and also added language describing this solution to the new NFSv4.1 draft * The NFSv4 protocol has no equivalent to the "grant" call; clients must thus poll very frequently if they wish to acquire contended locks in a timely manner. The traditional NLM grant call is, however, has a number of known races, and is known to be problematic. We therefore have proposed an alternative mechanism which allows a server to notify a client that a lock is available without committing the server to granting the lock to the client. Speicific language for NFSv4.1 has been proposed and met with interest, but is awaiting working group concensus.
Cluster Filesystem ->lock() Interface
There is currently a filesystem ->lock() method, but it is defined only by a few filesystems that are not exported via NFS. So none of the lock routines that are used by LOCKD or the NFSv4 server bother to call those methods. Cluster filesystems would like to NFS to call their own lock methods which keep a consistant view of a lock across cluster filesystem nodes. But the current ->lock() interface is not suitable for cluster filesystems in a couple of ways.
* We'd rather not block the NFSv4 server or LOCKD threads for longer than necessary, so it'd be nice to have a way to make lock requests asynchronously. This is particularly helpful for non-blocking locks, which do not have the option of returning a temporary "blocked" response and then responding with a granted callback later. * Given that in the blocking case we want the filesystem to be able to return from ->lock() without having necessarily acquired the lock, we need to be able to handle the case where a process on the client is interrupted and the client cancels the lock.
* Design and implement an asynchronous ->lock() interface * Have LOCKD and the NFSv4 server test for and call the new ->lock()
Since acquiring a filesystem lock may require comminication with remote hosts, and to avoid blocking lock manager threads during such communication, we allow the results to be returned asynchronously.
When a filesystem ->lock() call needs to block due to a delay in satisfying a non-blocking lock request, the file system will return -EINPROGRESS, and then later return the results with a callback registered via the lock_manager_operations struct.
An FL_CANCEL flag is added to the struct file_lock to indicate to the file system that the caller wants to cancel the provided lock.
New routines vfs_lock_file, vfs_test_lock, and vfs_cancel_lock replace posix_lock_file, posix_test_file, and posix_cancel_lock in LOCKD and the NFSv4 server. They call the new filesystem ->lock() method if it exists, else call the posix conterparts.
Our solution has been tested with the GPFS file system. The relevant patches have been submitted to the Linux community, and we are responding to comments.
A major issue for acceptance is the lack of a consumer in the Linux kernel - e.g. a cluster file system with byte-range locking.