On Wed, 4 Jun 2014 08:48:02 -0400 Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 3:39 AM, NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sat, 31 May 2014 08:13:58 +1000 NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> On Fri, 30 May 2014 17:55:23 -0400 "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 01:44:42PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote: > >> > > On Thu, 29 May 2014 20:44:23 -0400 "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> > > wrote: > >> > > > >> > > > Yes, it's a known server bug. > >> > > > > >> > > > As a first attempt I was thinking of just sticking a timestamp in struct > >> > > > inode to record the time of the most recent conflicting access and deny > >> > > > delegations if the timestamp is too recent, for some definition of too > >> > > > recent. > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > Hmmm... I'll have a look next week and see what I can come up with. > >> > > >> > Thanks! > >> > > >> > If we didn't think it was worth another struct inode field, we could > >> > probably get away with global state. Even just refusing to give out any > >> > delegations for a few seconds after any delegation break would be enough > >> > to fix this bug. > >> > > >> > Or you could make it a little less harsh with a small hash table: "don't > >> > give out a delegation on any inode whose inode number hashes to X for a > >> > few seconds." > >> > >> I was thinking of using a bloom filter - or possibly two. > >> - avoid handing out delegations if either bloom filter reports a match > >> - when reclaiming a delegation add the inode to the second bloom filter > >> - every so-often zero-out the older filter and swap them. > >> > >> Might be a bit of overkill, but I won't know until I implement it. > >> > > > > Below is my suggestion. It seems easy enough. It even works. > > > > However it does raise an issue with the NFS client. > > > > NFS performs a silly-rename as an 'asynchronous' operation. One consequence > > of this is that NFS4ERR_DELAY always results in a delay of > > NFS4_POLL_RETRY_MAX (15*HZ), where as sync requests use an exponential scale > > from _MIN to _MAX. > > > > So in my test case there is always a 15second delay: > > - try to silly-rename > > - get NFS4ERR_DELAY > > - server reclaim delegation > > - 15 seconds passes > > - retry silly-rename - it works. > > > > I hacked the NFS server to store a timeout in 'struct nfs_renamedata', and > > use the same exponential retry pattern and the 15 seconds (obviously) > > disappeared. > > > > Trond: would you accept a patch which did that more generally? e.g. pass a > > timeout pointer to nfs4_async_handle_error() and various *_done function pass > > a pointer to a field in their calldata? > > It depends. If we're touching nfs4_async_handle_error, then I think we > should also convert nfs4_async_handle_error to use the same "struct > nfs4_exception" argument that we use for the synchronous case so that > we can share a bit more code. > Yes, it certainly would be an improvement if we could unite nfs4_handle_exception and nfs4_async_handle_error. I might have a look but it probably won't be straight away. Thanks, NeilBrown
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
