On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 11:19 PM, NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 1 Aug 2014 22:55:42 -0400 Trond Myklebust <trondmy@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > That still leaves some open questions though... >> > >> > Is that enough to fix it? You'd still have the dirty pages lingering >> > around, right? Would a umount -f presumably work at that point? >> >> 'umount -f' will kill any outstanding RPC calls that are causing the >> mount to hang, but doesn't do anything to change page states or NFS >> file/lock states. > > Should it though? > > MNT_FORCE (since Linux 2.1.116) > Force unmount even if busy. This can cause data loss. (Only > for NFS mounts.) > > Given that data loss is explicitly permitted, I suspect it should. > > Can we make MNT_FORCE on NFS not only abort outstanding RPC calls, but > fail all subsequent RPC calls? That might make it really useful. You > wouldn't even need to "kill -9" then. Yes, but if the umount fails due to other conditions (for example an application happens to still have a file open on that volume) then that could leave you with a persistent messy situation on your hands. 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
