On 05/13/2010 06:17 PM, William A. (Andy) Adamson wrote:
> On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Benny Halevy <bhalevy@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On May. 13, 2010, 17:19 +0300, "William A. (Andy) Adamson" <androsadamson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 4:40 AM, Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> I've tested the patch:
>>>> FIXME: async layout return
>>>>
>>>> And there is a missing small hunk
>>>>
>>>> I have tested with this patch and it is a very good patch
>>>> that should also go into 2.6.33. It is necessary in the rare
>>>> case when one inode have more then one open_context.
>>>
>>> Do you mean more than one open context per open owner?
>>
>> What we see is one "regular" open context and one which is the layout_commit_ctx
>
> Isn't that a BUG?
>
> Here is what we're seeing:
>
> nfs_file_release->nfs_release->nfs_file_clear_open_context->__put_nfs_open_context->
> NFS_PROTO(inode)->close_context->nfs4_close_sync->__nfs4_close->pnfs_layoutcommit_inode,
>
> This is the same code that Boaz's 'missing small hunk' adds the wait
> to the pnfs_layout_commit_inode to. This is good, because when
> __nfs4_close is called with sync, every thing must be sent/returned
> prior to the nfs_do_close call.
>
> But there is still a problem. Here is the __nfs4_close call (with out
> the wait that Boaz added)
>
> if (nfsi->layoutcommit_ctx)
> pnfs_layoutcommit_inode(state->inode, 0);
> if (has_layout(nfsi) && nfsi->layout.roc_iomode) {
> struct nfs4_pnfs_layout_segment range;
>
> range.iomode = nfsi->layout.roc_iomode;
> range.offset = 0;
> range.length = NFS4_MAX_UINT64;
> pnfs_return_layout(state->inode, &range, NULL,
> RETURN_FILE);
>
> Note that a pnfs_return_layout which is always 'sync' (async with wait
> for completion). So the (currently) async LAYOUTCOMMIT call returns,
> and a LAYOUTRETURN is put on the wire
>
> Then the LAYOUTCOMMIT rpc_call_done routine calls
> pnfs_layoutcommit_done which calls put_nfs_open_context. If the open
> context is different from the open context that was put by
> nfs_file_release, then
>
> pnfs_layoutcommit_done->put_nfs_open_context-> ..... ->__nfs4_close
> and the return on close LAYOUTRETURN is sent again!
>
> Of couse this second LAYOUTRETURN either gets a zero stateid, or uses
> the same stateid as the first LAYOUTRETURN, and the reply to the
> second LAYOUTRETURN will result in a NFS4ERR_BAD_STATEID .....
>
> This will occur whether the LAYOUTCOMMIT is async or sync as they both
> call pnfs_layoutcommit_done.
>
> I need to understand why there are two open contexts. On the face of
> it, it seems wrong.
>
> We also add a pointer to the open context in the nfs_write_data, and
> in the pnfs_layoutcommit_data. Do we take a reference on the open data
> in theses cases? .
>
> -->Andy
>
>
Yes on all acounts. This is what Benny's patch is fixing please try it out
it is most important (Add my small fix)
And about the multiple contexts I don't understand as well but the fact of it
is that an nfs_inode has an list_head of open_contexts and we must deal properly
with when that happens. (BTW with 2.6.34 Kernel it happens regularly as in
prev kernels it almost never trigger.)
Benny's patch takes care of that and I've done heavy testing of it I can see cases
of more then one contexts and it works correctly.
But I too would like to understand when is it that an inode can have more then
one open_context
Boaz
>
>>
>> Benny
>>
>>>
>>> -->Andy
>>>
>>>>
>>>> (For some reason I see that happening much more in 2.6.34
>>>> I don't understand why)
>>>>
>>>> Boaz
>>>> ---
>>>> git diff --stat -p -M
>>>> fs/nfs/nfs4state.c | 2 +-
>>>> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/fs/nfs/nfs4state.c b/fs/nfs/nfs4state.c
>>>> index 15c8bc8..6dbe893 100644
>>>> --- a/fs/nfs/nfs4state.c
>>>> +++ b/fs/nfs/nfs4state.c
>>>> @@ -590,7 +590,7 @@ static void __nfs4_close(struct path *path, struct nfs4_state *state, fmode_t fm
>>>> struct nfs_inode *nfsi = NFS_I(state->inode);
>>>>
>>>> if (nfsi->layoutcommit_ctx)
>>>> - pnfs_layoutcommit_inode(state->inode, 0);
>>>> + pnfs_layoutcommit_inode(state->inode, wait);
>>>> if (has_layout(nfsi) && nfsi->layout.roc_iomode) {
>>>> struct nfs4_pnfs_layout_segment range;
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>
> --
> 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
>
--
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
