On Sat, 2010-10-30 at 13:59 -0400, Brian J. Murrell wrote: > On Sat, 2010-10-30 at 13:52 -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote: > > > > The processes appeared to be waiting for state recovery to complete, but > > your trace didn't contain any evidence that a state recovery thread was > > running. > > To be clear, the trace was only that of blocked processes (echo w > > /proc/sysrq-trigger). I'm not sure if we should have expected the > state recovery thread to have been included (i.e. it was blocked too). > > > Did you over-edit the trace output, or was this really all? > > Other than the usual post-show-blocked-state output, yes, this really > was all there was. > > What does the state recovery thread look like in the process table so > that I can look for it next time? It will be running a process with a name of the form "<server IP address>-manager", and will be running the function nfs4_run_state_manager(). BTW: Do you have the following patches applied? http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git&a=commitdiff&h=b0ed9dbc24f1fd912b2dd08b995153cafc1d5b1c and http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git&a=commitdiff&h=ae1007d37e00144b72906a4bdc47d517ae91bcc1 They are not yet in the stable kernel series, AFAIK, but are slated to be merged soon. Cheers Trond -- 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
