On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 09:20:47AM -0700, Harry Edmon wrote: > On 05/16/11 13:53, Dr. J. Bruce Fields wrote: > >Hm, so the renews all have clid 465ccc4d09000000, and the reads all have > >a stateid (0, 465ccc4dc24c0a0000000000). > > > >So the first 4 bytes matching just tells me both were handed out by the > >same server instance (so there was no server reboot in between); there's > >no way for me to tell whether they really belong to the same client. > > > >The server does assume that any stateid from the current server instance > >that no longer exists in its table is expired. I believe that's > >correct, given a correctly functioning client, but perhaps I'm missing a > >case. > > > >--b. > I am very appreciative of the quick initial comments I receive from > all of you on my NFS problem. I notice that there has been silence > on the problem since the 16th, so I assume that either this is a > hard bug to track down or you have been busy with higher priority > tasks. Is there anything I can do to help develop a solution to > this problem? Well, the only candidate explanation for the problem is that my assumption--that any time the server gets a stateid from the current boot instance that it doesn't recognize as an active stateid, it is safe for the server to return EXPIRED--is wrong. I don't immediately see why it's wrong, and based on the silence nobody else does either, but I'm not 100% convinced I'm right either. So one approach might be to add server code that makes a better effort to return EXPIRED only when we're sure it's a stateid from an expired client, and see if that solves your problem. Remind me, did you have an easy way to reproduce your problem? --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
