Instead of giving up altogether and falling back to doing I/O
through the MDS, which may make the situation worse, wait for
2 lease periods for the callback to resolve itself, and then
try destroying the existing layout.
Only if this was an attempt at getting a first layout, do we
give up altogether, as the server is clearly crazy.
Fixes: 183d9e7b112aa ("pnfs: rework LAYOUTGET retry handling")
Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx # 4.7
Signed-off-by: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
fs/nfs/pnfs.c | 13 +++++++++++--
1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/nfs/pnfs.c b/fs/nfs/pnfs.c
index b5c1306f63c1..0da9353f0441 100644
--- a/fs/nfs/pnfs.c
+++ b/fs/nfs/pnfs.c
@@ -1505,7 +1505,7 @@ pnfs_update_layout(struct inode *ino,
struct pnfs_layout_segment *lseg = NULL;
nfs4_stateid stateid;
long timeout = 0;
- unsigned long giveup = jiffies + rpc_get_timeout(server->client);
+ unsigned long giveup = jiffies + (clp->cl_lease_time << 1);
bool first;
if (!pnfs_enabled_sb(NFS_SERVER(ino))) {
@@ -1649,9 +1649,18 @@ lookup_again:
if (IS_ERR(lseg)) {
switch(PTR_ERR(lseg)) {
case -EBUSY:
- case -ERECALLCONFLICT:
if (time_after(jiffies, giveup))
lseg = NULL;
+ break;
+ case -ERECALLCONFLICT:
+ /* Huh? We hold no layouts, how is there a recall? */
+ if (first) {
+ lseg = NULL;
+ break;
+ }
+ /* Destroy the existing layout and start over */
+ if (time_after(jiffies, giveup))
+ pnfs_destroy_layout(NFS_I(ino));
/* Fallthrough */
case -EAGAIN:
break;
--
2.7.4
--
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
