Re: [PATCH/RFC] staging/lustre: Rework class_process_proc_param
- Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2017 00:41:20 -0400
- From: Oleg Drokin <green@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] staging/lustre: Rework class_process_proc_param
On Mar 19, 2017, at 12:29 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 11:17:55AM -0400, Oleg Drokin wrote:
>> On Mar 18, 2017, at 6:34 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>> On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 02:24:08AM -0400, Oleg Drokin wrote:
>>>> Ever since sysfs migration, class_process_proc_param stopped working
>>>> correctly as all the useful params were no longer present as lvars.
>>>> Replace all the nasty fake proc writes with hopefully less nasty
>>>> kobject attribute search and then update the attributes as needed.
>>>> Signed-off-by: Oleg Drokin <green@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Reported-by: Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Al has quite rightfully complained in the past that class_process_proc_param
>>>> is a terrible piece of code and needs to go.
>>>> This patch is an attempt at improving it somewhat and in process drop
>>>> all the user/kernel address space games we needed to play to make it work
>>>> in the past (and which I suspect attracted Al's attention in the first place).
>>>> Now I wonder if iterating kobject attributes like that would be ok with
>>>> you Greg, or do you think there is a better way?
>>>> class_find_write_attr could be turned into something generic since it's
>>>> certainly convenient to reuse same table of name-write_method pairs,
>>>> but I did some cursory research and nobody else seems to need anything
>>>> of the sort in-tree.
>>>> I know ll_process_config is still awful and I will likely just
>>>> replace the current hack with kset_find_obj, but I just wanted to make
>>>> sure this new approach would be ok before spending too much time on it.
>>> I'm not quite sure what exactly you are even trying to do here. What is
>>> this interface? Who calls it, and how? What does it want to do?
>> This is a configuration client code.
>> Management server has ability to pass down config information in the form of:
>> fsname.subsystem.attribute=value to clients and other servers
>> (subsystem determines if it's something of interest of clients or servers or
>> This could be changed in the real time - i.e. you update it on the server and
>> that gets propagated to all the clients/servers, so no need to ssh into
>> every node to manually apply those changes and worry about client restarts
>> (the config is remembered at the management server and would be applied to any
>> new nodes connecting/across server restarts and such).
>> So the way it then works then is once the string fsname.subsystem.attribute=value is delivered to the client, we find all instances of filesystem with fsname and then
>> all subsystems within it (one kobject per subsystem instance) and then update the
>> attributes to the value supplied.
>> The same filesystem might be mounted more than once and then some layers might have
>> multiple instances inside a single filesystems.
>> In the end it would turn something like lustre.osc.max_dirty_mb=128 into
>> writes to
>> /sys/fs/lustre/osc/lustre-OST0000-osc-ffff8800d75ca000/max_dirty_mb and
>> without actually iterating in sysfs namespace.
> Wait, who is doing the "write"? From within the kernel? Or some
> userspace app? I'm guessing from within the kernel, you are receiving
> the data from some other transport within the filesystem and then need
> to apply the settings?
Yes, kernel code gets the notification "hey, there's a config change, come get it",
then it requests the diff in the config and does the "write' by updating the
>> The alternative we considered is we can probably just do an upcall and have
>> a userspace tool called with the parameter verbatim and try to figure it out,
>> but that seems a lot less ideal, and also we'll get a bunch of complications from
>> containers and such too, I imagine.
> Yeah, no, don't do an upcall, that's a mess.
>> The function pre-this patch is assuming that all these values are part of
>> a list of procfs values (no longer true after sysfs migration) so just iterates
>> that list and calls the write for matched names (but also needs to supply a userspace
>> buffer so looks much uglier too).
> For kobjects, you don't need userspace buffers, so this should be
Right, it's less of a mess due to that.
>> Hopefully this makes at least some sense.
> Yes, a bit more, but ugh, what a mess :)
Overall big systems are quite messy in many ways no matter what you do,
so it's always a case of pick your poison.
>>> You can look up attributes for a kobject easily in the show/store
>>> functions (and some drivers just have a generic one and then you look at
>>> the string to see which attribute you are wanting to reference.) But
>>> you seem to be working backwards here, why do you have to look up a
>> But that leads to the need to list attribute names essentially twice:
>> once for the attributes list, once in the show/set function to figure
>> out how to deal with that name.
> Yes, you don't need/want to do that.
> Let me go review the code now with that info, thanks, it makes more
In the end if the approach is mostly acceptable, I imagine if we just register the
kobject for the config changes, we can do away with the individual layers calling the
class_process_attr_param and instead have the class_process_config() call it directly
more or less.