On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 11:36 PM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 11:30:50PM +0800, Peng Tao wrote: >> It looks dangerous to have extents lurking around without matching >> layout segments. One example is NFS4ERR_EXPIRED and >> NFS4ERR_BAD_STATEID in nfs4_layoutget_done(), client needs to drop all >> layout segments but may keep the layout header, in which case blocks >> layout would still hold all extents at hand. > > We never do I/O without a valid layout, but we keep the extents around > because we need to keep state like that it's been written to or has > a commit pending in a single place, and also need to keep it if a layout > goes away temporarily. We don't know if layout goes away temporarily or permanently. If server happens to move the file's data (enterprise NAS does that for a lot of reasons) in between, next time client does layoutget, it will get a different extent mapping. I'm not sure if the new extent tracking code is able to cope with it. The old code will certainly fail though. If your concern is current layoutreturn implementation that ignores pending layoutcommit (and inflight IOs), that needs to be fixed. I have a patchset to fix it and it is still under internal QA. I'll post it once it passes testing. -- 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
