On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 12:53 PM, Olga Kornievskaia <aglo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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?
No, because in the case of EIO we now fall through to
nfs_detach_delegation() and nfs_do_return_delegation(). What we really
want to do is call TEST_STATEID + FREE_STATEID (see RFC5661 sections
8.2.4, 8.5 and 18.38.3), which will now be done as part of state
recovery.
--
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
