On Thu, May 07, 2009 at 02:51:23PM +0800, Wang Chen wrote:
> J. Bruce Fields said the following on 2009-5-7 4:32:
> > On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 05:17:20PM +0800, Wang Chen wrote:
> >> J. Bruce Fields said the following on 2009-4-25 7:12:
> >>> On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 11:09:44AM +0800, Wang Chen wrote:
> >>>> Although I can't reproduce it now, it really happened that some lock manager
> >>>> started grace period but didn't end it.
> >>>> This causes an lm entry be left in grace_list, and when service nfs restart,
> >>>> the same lm will be added again into the list.
> >>>> As you know, adding an entry, which is in the list, to a list will leads to
> >>>> list corruption.
> >>> I'd really like to understand why locks_end_grace() isn't being called.
> >>> I'm probably overlooking something obvious, but I just can't see how
> >>> lockd or nfsd can be shut down right now without locks_end_grace() being
> >>> called.
> >>>
> >> Me neither can figure out why locks_end_grace() isn't being called.
> >>
> >> But do locks_start_grace() twice can trigger this warning too.
> >> You can do
> >> 1. service nfs restart
> >> 2. (immediately) kill -s SIGKILL lockd
> >> this can trigger
> >> ---
> >> lockd(void *vrqstp)
> >> ...
> >> if (signalled()) {
> >> flush_signals(current);
> >> if (nlmsvc_ops) {
> >> nlmsvc_invalidate_all();
> >> set_grace_period();
> >> ---
> >> and makes locks_start_grace() be called twice without locks_end_grace().
> >
> > Ah-hah!
> >
> >> So I still suggest to do something to protect the lm list. :)
> >
> > I wouldn't be opposed to a simple WARN_ON(!list_empty()) in
> > locks_start_grace(), but I'm mainly worried about fixing the original
> > bug. How about the following?
> >
>
> Yeah, the following fix is OK to me, although it only fixed
> "start_grace again after start_grace" case.
OK, thanks.
> The bug about "quit lockd without end_grace", which I encountered before
> incidentally, maybe is still there.
You're talking about the report that started this thread?:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-nfs&m=124054262421444&w=2
It looks to me like that could be explained by two start_grace's in a
row.
--b.
>
> > --b.
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/lockd/svc.c b/fs/lockd/svc.c
> > index abf8388..1a54ae1 100644
> > --- a/fs/lockd/svc.c
> > +++ b/fs/lockd/svc.c
> > @@ -104,6 +104,16 @@ static void set_grace_period(void)
> > schedule_delayed_work(&grace_period_end, grace_period);
> > }
> >
> > +static void restart_grace(void)
> > +{
> > + if (nlmsvc_ops) {
> > + cancel_delayed_work_sync(&grace_period_end);
> > + locks_end_grace(&lockd_manager);
> > + nlmsvc_invalidate_all();
> > + set_grace_period();
> > + }
> > +}
> > +
> > /*
> > * This is the lockd kernel thread
> > */
> > @@ -149,10 +159,7 @@ lockd(void *vrqstp)
> >
> > if (signalled()) {
> > flush_signals(current);
> > - if (nlmsvc_ops) {
> > - nlmsvc_invalidate_all();
> > - set_grace_period();
> > - }
> > + restart_grace();
> > continue;
> > }
> >
> >
>
--
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
