On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 10:19 PM, Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Jul 2, 2012, at 5:13 PM, Myklebust, Trond wrote: > >> On Mon, 2012-07-02 at 16:35 -0400, Chuck Lever wrote: >>> On Jul 2, 2012, at 4:22 PM, Charles 'Boyo wrote: >>> >>>> On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Usually we see this behavior because of a race between an OPEN with delegation and a delegation recall. In this case, however, the client is actively returning a READ >>>>> delegation, then proceeding to use it anyway. I don't see the server's recall callback, though, and there are other indications that this trace is not complete. So it's hard >>>>> to be 100% confident. >>>>> >>>> The trace is not complete, it includes just enough information to >>>> explain the problem. >>>> However I can confirm the service did not send a recall callback, the >>>> client returned the delegation of its own "free will". >>> >>> The callback would come on a separate TCP connection. I can't think of a reason that a client would return a delegation by itself and then subsequently start to use it. >> >> I can: there are a number of servers out there that violate the spec by >> returning a delegation as part of an OPEN(CLAIM_DELEGATE_CUR). Usually >> those broken servers will send the exact same stateid as the delegation >> that is being returned. > > The OPEN in frame 7 is a CLAIM_NULL OPEN, isn't it? > The OPEN in this case is a CLAIM_NULL and I have re-examined my network dump, there was no call back from the server. So why would the client returns a delegation voluntarily and then re-use it? >>>> Is it possible is a scheduling issue of some sort, where the READ >>>> should have been sent ahead of the DELEGRETURN but somehow got mixed >>>> up? >>> Or possibly that the DELEGRETURN doesn't actually remove the delegation state ID until the server has replied, and the READ request was sent before the DELEGRETURN >>> reply arrived at the client. Indeed, the READ was issued after the DELEGRETURN but before the response to it. Is it possible to check if this is expected behavior? -- 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
