Thank you for looking into this!
On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 7:14 PM, Trond Myklebust
<trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 6:22 PM, Olga Kornievskaia <aglo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Trond, can you please respond to the patch?
>>
>> As per earlier conversation, in this solution, state recovery is
>> initiated which marks the locks lost.
>>
>> Please either accept this patch or let me know what needs to be fixed.
>>
>
> Please see the 3 fixes I just sent out concerning delegation recovery
> w.r.t. NFSv4+NFSv4.1. In addition, we need to handle the case you
> patch attempts to address (however see the question I have below).
>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 9:36 AM, Olga Kornievskaia <kolga@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> If we get a bad-stateid-type of error when we send OPEN with delegate_cur
>>> to return currently held delegation, we shouldn't be trying to reclaim locks
>>> associated with that delegation state_id because we don't have an
>>> open_stateid to be used for the LOCK operation. Thus, we should
>>> return an error from the nfs4_open_delegation_recall() in that case.
>>>
>>> Furthermore, if an error occurs the delegation code will call
>>> nfs_abort_delegation_return() which sets again the NFS4CLNT_DELEGRETURN
>>> flags in the state and it leads the state manager to into an infinite loop
>>> for trying to reclaim the delegated state.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Olga Kornievskaia <kolga@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> fs/nfs/delegation.c | 5 +++--
>>> fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c | 2 +-
>>> 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/fs/nfs/delegation.c b/fs/nfs/delegation.c
>>> index 5853f53..8016d89 100644
>>> --- a/fs/nfs/delegation.c
>>> +++ b/fs/nfs/delegation.c
>>> @@ -394,7 +394,7 @@ static int nfs_end_delegation_return(struct inode *inode, struct nfs_delegation
>>> err = nfs4_wait_clnt_recover(clp);
>>> } while (err == 0);
>>>
>>> - if (err) {
>>> + if (err && err != -EIO) {
>>> nfs_abort_delegation_return(delegation, clp);
>
> This exception for EIO now has me worried. If we detach the
> delegation, then it looks to me as if we will never send a
> FREE_STATEID, as required for the case of NFSv4.1.
I'd need to brush up on the FREE_STATEID op to confidently answer
that. But can't this be taken care of in state_recovery when locks are
marked lost?
>
>>> goto out;
>>> }
>>> @@ -458,7 +458,8 @@ restart:
>>> iput(inode);
>>> if (!err)
>>> goto restart;
>>> - set_bit(NFS4CLNT_DELEGRETURN, &clp->cl_state);
>>> + if (err != -EIO)
>>> + set_bit(NFS4CLNT_DELEGRETURN, &clp->cl_state);
>
> Please explain why this is needed. If we've cleared the bad
> delegation, then why should we not attempt to return any others that
> may be pending?
You are right, I think this is unnecessary because after we return the
delegation the bit can be set again for any other leftover
delegations. I have tested my patch without that chuck and it still
fixes the issues.
>
>>> return err;
>>> }
>>> }
>>> diff --git a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
>>> index 5aa55c1..6871055 100644
>>> --- a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
>>> +++ b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
>>> @@ -1655,7 +1655,7 @@ static int nfs4_handle_delegation_recall_error(struct nfs_server *server, struct
>>> nfs_inode_find_state_and_recover(state->inode,
>>> stateid);
>>> nfs4_schedule_stateid_recovery(server, state);
>>> - return 0;
>>> + return -EIO;
>>> case -NFS4ERR_DELAY:
>>> case -NFS4ERR_GRACE:
>>> set_bit(NFS_DELEGATED_STATE, &state->flags);
>>> --
>>> 1.7.1
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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
>
>
>
> --
> Trond Myklebust
>
> Linux NFS client maintainer, PrimaryData
>
> trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
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
