On 5/16/2015 7:23 AM, NeilBrown wrote:
> On Fri, 15 May 2015 17:11:34 -0400 "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 02:25:15PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
>>> On Mon, 11 May 2015 21:08:47 +0800 Kinglong Mee <kinglongmee@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/8/2015 9:47 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
>>>>> It could also be useful to have the ability to force an unmount even in
>>>>> the presence of locks. That's not a safe default, but an
>>>>> "allow_force_unmount" export option might be useful.
>>>
>>> We already have a mechanism to forcibly drop any locks by writing some magic
>>> to /proc/fs/nfsd/unlock_{ip,filesystem}. I don't think we need any more.
>>
>> Yeah, I remember thinking this sort of approach would have advantages,
>> maybe I was wrong, I need to revisit it.
>>
>> The unlock_{ip,filesystem} approach requires temporarily shutting down
>> mountd, doesn't it?
>
> Not necessarily.
> It does require ensuring that new locks aren't suddenly taken though.
>
> I imagine an early step in the migration process is to "ifconfig down" the
> virtual interface with the floating ID. Then you can safely "unlock" and
> unmount any filesystems are that only accessed via the IP.
>
> But you are right that using the "unlock_*" interface and then unmounting is
> racy in a way that we are trying to make "unmount" not racy. So maybe an
> "allow_force_unmount" would have a place.
No, unlock_{ip,filesystem} are used for nlmlock, doesn't support nfsv4 resources.
Some other interfaces under /sys/kernel/debug/nfsd/forget_* support nfsv4 resources,
without for an filesystem. It seems will be removed sometime.
thanks,
Kinglong Mee
--
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
