GSOC 2015 Aspirant for Improving SMB3 protocol improvements

Steve French smfrench at
Fri Mar 27 12:00:51 MDT 2015

Note that even the small changes to implement directory leases
(oplocks) on the client should make a pretty big improvement in
performance which you could measure easily.

- updating cifs_inode_needs_reval in fs/cifs/inode.c to check for
directory leases
- and adding oplock break handling for directory leases see
fs/cifs/smb2ops.c smb2_oplock_response and cifs_oplock_break in
- adding the code to request directory leases (see fs/cifs/smb2pdu.c SMB2_open)
- and maybe add a simple mount option to test it (turning on or off
directory lease support for testing)

This sounds like a pretty easily doable project for GSoC and could
make a big difference in performance

On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Steve French <smfrench at> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 5:53 AM, Saket Sinha <saket.sinha89 at> wrote:
>> Hi Steve,
>> This is regarding the project implementing Directory oplocks in linux
>> samba client.
>> In mainline linux kernel, we have oplocks already implemented for file
>> operations. Following oplocks are present for files -
>>> 2) Directory oplocks:
>>> Advantage: will reduce network load a lot in some workloads, and improve performance as well.  Works with recent Windows servers (Windows 2012 and later e.g.)
>>> Disadvantage: Samba does not support it yet (although this might help drive changes to the Server and Linux VFS eventually, if we have client support).
>>  Locking scheme used for directory operations is based on two kinds of
>> locks - per-inode (->i_mutex) and per-filesystem
>> (->s_vfs_rename_mutex).
>>  When taking the i_mutex on multiple non-directory objects, we always
>> acquire the locks in order by increasing address.  We'll call  that
>> "inode pointer" order in the following.
>>   For our purposes all operations fall in 5 classes:
>> 1) read access.  Locking rules: caller locks directory we are accessing.
>> 2) object creation.  Locking rules: same as above.
>> 3) object removal.  Locking rules: caller locks parent -> finds victim
>> ->  locks victim and calls the method.
>> 4) rename() that is _not_ cross-directory.
>> Locking rules: caller locks the parent and finds source and target.
>> If target already exists, lock it.  If source is a non-directory, lock
>> it.  If that means we need to
>> lock both, lock them in inode pointer order.
>> 5) link creation.
>> Locking rules: lock parent -> check that source is not a directory ->
>> lock source -> call the method.
>> 6) cross-directory rename.  The trickiest in the whole bunch.
>>  Locking  rules:  lock the filesystem -> lock parents in "ancestors
>> first" order -> find source and target ->  if old parent is equal to
>> or is a descendent of target fail with -ENOTEMPTY -> if new parent is
>> equal to or is a descendent of source fail with -ELOOP -> If target
>> exists, lock it.  If source is a non-directory, lock it.  In case that
>> means we need to lock both source and target, do so in inode pointer
>> order -> call the method.
>> So here  we  would be attempting to implement all of these directory
>> operations, by the same oplocks that we use for file operations.
>> I would request you to let me know whether my understanding is correct
>> and which task to choose to get started.
> Directory oplocks are likely to be an extension of the actimeo
> metadata caching on the client.
> Note that the kernel does not have an exact equivalent for directory
> oplocks but that does not prevent cifs.ko from returning cached inode
> data (or even cached directory leases) on directories for which we
> have been granted a read-only directory oplock.  Some of the places
> that we cache inode data are controlled by actimeo (we cache for about
> a second, a little stricter than most network file systems but this
> would allow us to cache safely for longer periods).  We will also need
> a mount option to disable directory leases (to work around a buggy
> server e.g.).
> Probably easiest thing to do is take two Windows machines (at least
> Windows 8 or later) and trace network traffic accessing files, listing
> directory contents in a directory (and repeating a couple of times),
> and then do the same thing to a Samba server from the same client.
> You should see differences in the number of query info calls (due to
> Windows supporting directory leases).
> Also FYI - I have created a status wiki page for the SMB3
> implementation in the kernel client  (although needs various
> corrections and additions)
> --
> Thanks,
> Steve



More information about the samba-technical mailing list