On Thu, Aug 04, 2011 at 06:43:13PM +0200, Frank van Maarseveen wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 04, 2011 at 12:34:52PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 04, 2011 at 12:30:19PM +0200, Frank van Maarseveen wrote:
> > > Both client- and server run 2.6.39.3, NFSv3 over UDP (without the
> > > relock_filesystem patch proposed earlier).
> > >
> > > A second client has an exclusive lock on a file on the server. The
> > > client under test calls fcntl(F_SETLKW) to wait for the same exclusive
> > > lock. Wireshark sees NLM V4 LOCK calls resulting in NLM_BLOCKED.
> > >
> > > Next the server is rebooted. The second client recovers the lock
> > > correctly. The client under test now receives NLM_DENIED_GRACE_PERIOD for
> > > every NLM V4 LOCK request resulting from the waiting fcntl(F_SETLKW). When
> > > this changes to NLM_BLOCKED after grace period expiration the fcntl
> > > returns -ENOLCK ("No locks available.") instead of continuing to wait.
> >
> > So that sounds like a client bug, and correct behavior from the server
> > (assuming the second client was still holding the lock throughout).
>
> yes.
>
> >
> > > server:/proc/locks shows two entries for the file after the -ENOLCK. When
> > > the second client gives up its lock because the program running there
> > > is killed one entry in server:/proc/locks remains indefinately: as a
> > > result no NFS client can lock the file anymore.
> >
> > But that sounds like a server bug--what do the two entries look like?
>
> I think the server assumes correct client behavior; the client under
> test resulted in a '->' prefixed entry. The fcntl at the client just
> shouldn't have returned yet.
Oh, right, so did you see a granted callback returned to the client?
--b.
>
> >
> > Also, what filesystem are you exporting?
>
> ext4
>
> --
> Frank
--
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
