Hi Jeff. I still found ESTALE error although patching these patch-set. Is test method correct that I try to run estale_test on each nfs server and client at the same time ? ./estale_test chmod: Stale NFS[ 281.720000] ##### send signal from USER, SIG : 2, estale_test(107)->estale_test(102) sys_kill [ 281.728000] ##### send signal from USER, SIG : 15, estale_test(102)->estale_test(103) sys_kill [ 281.736000] ##### send signal from USER, SIG : 15, estale_test(102)->estale_test(104) sys_kill [ 281.744000] ##### send signal from USER, SIG : 15, estale_test(102)->estale_test(105) sys_kill [ 281.752000] ##### send signal from USER, SIG : 15, estale_test(102)->estale_test(106) sys_kill [ 281.760000] ##### send signal from USER, SIG : 15, estale_test(102)->estale_test(107) sys_kill [ 281.768000] ##### send signal from USER, SIG : 15, estale_test(102)->estale_test(108) sys_kill [ 281.780000] ##### send signal from USER, SIG : 15, estale_test(102)->estale_test(109) sys_kill [ 281.788000] ##### send signal from USER, SIG : 15, estale_test(102)->estale_test(110) sys_kill [ 281.796000] ##### send signal from USER, SIG : 15, estale_test(102)->estale_test(111) sys_kill [ 281.804000] ##### send signal from USER, SIG : 15, estale_test(102)->estale_test(112) sys_kill [ 281.812000] ##### send signal from USER, SIG : 15, estale_test(102)->estale_test(113) sys_kill [ 281.820000] ##### send signal from USER, SIG : 15, estale_test(102)->estale_test(114) sys_kill [ 281.828000] ##### send signal from USER, SIG : 15, estale_test(102)->estale_test(115) sys_kill [ 281.840000] ##### send signal from USER, SIG : 15, estale_test(102)->estale_test(116) sys_kill [ 281.848000] ##### send signal from USER, SIG : 15, estale_test(102)->estale_test(117) sys_kill [ 281.856000] ##### send signal from USER, SIG : 15, estale_test(102)->estale_test(118) sys_kill [ 281.864000] ##### send signal from USER, SIG : 15, estale_test(102)->estale_test(119) sys_kill file handle VDLinux#> chdir: Stale NFS[ 282.664000] ##### send signal from USER, SIG : 2, estale_test(120)->???(102) sys_kill file handle Thanks. 2012/8/8, Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>: > This patchset is a respin of the one I sent on July 26th. The main > reason for the resend is to deal with some recent changes in namei.c > that created some merge conflicts. > > This series depends on the "audit" series that I also sent on July 26th. > That set didn't need any changes, so I'm not planning to resend it. > > This set is also available via the "estale" branch of my git tree: > > git://git.samba.org/jlayton/linux.git estale > > I'd like to see this go in for 3.7 if at all possible. > > The original cover letter text follows: > > ESTALE errors are a source of pain for many users, primarily those who > are doing work on NFS. When userspace provides a path to a syscall, then > there's really little excuse for returning ESTALE. If userspace gave us > a path that we had to lookup in order to do the call, then it's not > particularly helpful to return ESTALE just because that path went stale > before we could do the actual operation. > > We can and should do better here. The kernel should instead catch that > error and retry the lookup and call, while forcing a revalidation of all > dentries involved. > > Unfortunately fixing this requires touching the syscalls themselves, or > at least their immediate helper functions. Not all syscalls can be > retried -- only those that take a pathname as an argument. > > With this patchset, I've decided to take the relatively less > controversial approach of just having the kernel retry once when it gets > an ESTALE error. I still think that it's not as strong as it should be, > but it should improve the situation in many common cases. > > I've also tried to engineer this in such a way that if we do decide that > we need to retry more than once, then it should be easy to change that > later. This should cover all of the syscalls in fs/stat.c and > fs/namei.c, and a few from fs/open.c. > > Once these are merged, I'll look at adding similar handling to other > path-based syscalls in a later set. A quick look shows that we have > about 50-odd path-based syscalls that will need similar handling, so > this is just a start. > > Jeff Layton (19): > vfs: add a retry_estale helper function to handle retries on ESTALE > vfs: add a kern_path_at function > vfs: make fstatat retry on ESTALE errors from getattr call > vfs: fix readlinkat to retry on ESTALE > vfs: remove user_path_at_empty > vfs: turn "empty" arg in getname_flags into a bool > vfs: add new "reval" argument to kern_path_create > vfs: fix mknodat to retry on ESTALE errors > vfs: fix mkdir to retry on ESTALE errors > vfs: fix symlinkat to retry on ESTALE errors > vfs: fix linkat to retry on ESTALE errors > vfs: make rmdir retry on ESTALE errors > vfs: make do_unlinkat retry on ESTALE errors > vfs: fix renameat to retry on ESTALE errors > vfs: remove user_path_parent > vfs: have do_sys_truncate retry once on an ESTALE error > vfs: have faccessat retry once on an ESTALE error > vfs: have chdir retry lookup and call once on ESTALE error > vfs: make chroot retry once on ESTALE error > > drivers/base/devtmpfs.c | 7 +- > fs/namei.c | 357 > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------ > fs/open.c | 234 ++++++++++++++++++------------- > fs/stat.c | 44 ++++-- > include/linux/fs.h | 22 +++ > include/linux/namei.h | 4 +- > net/unix/af_unix.c | 2 +- > 7 files changed, 422 insertions(+), 248 deletions(-) > > -- > 1.7.11.2 > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
