On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 03:22:57PM -0400, Peter Staubach wrote: > J. Bruce Fields wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 02:49:27PM +0800, hexf wrote: >> >>> We are using nfsv3. Now we meet a demand. If a client which hold a >>> lock crash, after it reboot, its statd daemon can notify the nfs >>> server to release the lock. But if this client will not reboot for >>> some reason(or will reboot after a long time), then the lock it >>> holding will not be released.In nfsv3 and nlmv4,it seems there is no >>> time-out mechnism for this situation. How would we solve this >>> question? My colleague advise me to modify the code of NLM/NSM to meet >>> this demand,but is seems quite a complicated work.Can you give me some >>> advice? >>> >> >> It might be possible to modify the server so that it dropped all locks >> from a client it hadn't heard from in a while. However, nfsv2/v3 >> clients are not required to contact the server regularly while they hold >> locks. So you may end up revoking locks held by perfectly good >> functioning clients. >> >> As an ugly workaround, rebooting the server will clear the problem, as >> it will notify clients to recover their locks on restart, and any dead >> clients will fail to recover their locks. >> >> > > Didn't Wendy Cheng submit some patches to implement a > "clearlocks" sort of functionality? What happened with > them? Yes, but that's motivated by the case of migrating all clients using one export; so it'll drop all locks held on a single filesystem, or all locks acquired using a single server (not client!) ip address. So if we want some finer-grained interface then that's yet to be designed. --b. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
