On Thu, 2016-07-28 at 14:41 -0400, Benjamin Coddington wrote:
> A LAYOUTCOMMIT then subsequent GETATTR may both return the same
> attributes,
> and in that case NFS_INO_INVALID_ATTR is never set on the second pass
> through nfs_update_inode(). The existing check to skip the clearing
> of
> NFS_INO_INVALID_ATTR if a LAYOUTCOMMIT is outstanding does not help
> in this
> case (see commit 10b7e9ad4488: "pNFS: Don't mark the inode as
> revalidated
> if a LAYOUTCOMMIT is outstanding"). We know that if a LAYOUTCOMMIT
> is
> outstanding then attributes will need upating, so always set
> NFS_INO_INVALID_ATTR.
>
> Signed-off-by: Benjamin Coddington <bcodding@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> fs/nfs/inode.c | 8 +++++---
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/nfs/inode.c b/fs/nfs/inode.c
> index f108d58101f8..bf4ec5ecc97e 100644
> --- a/fs/nfs/inode.c
> +++ b/fs/nfs/inode.c
> @@ -1665,7 +1665,7 @@ static int nfs_update_inode(struct inode
> *inode, struct nfs_fattr *fattr)
> unsigned long now = jiffies;
> unsigned long save_cache_validity;
> bool have_writers = nfs_file_has_buffered_writers(nfsi);
> - bool cache_revalidated;
> + bool cache_revalidated = true;
>
> dfprintk(VFS, "NFS: %s(%s/%lu fh_crc=0x%08x ct=%d
> info=0x%x)\n",
> __func__, inode->i_sb->s_id, inode->i_ino,
> @@ -1714,8 +1714,10 @@ static int nfs_update_inode(struct inode
> *inode, struct nfs_fattr *fattr)
> /* Do atomic weak cache consistency updates */
> invalid |= nfs_wcc_update_inode(inode, fattr);
>
> -
> - cache_revalidated = !pnfs_layoutcommit_outstanding(inode);
> + if (pnfs_layoutcommit_outstanding(inode)) {
> + nfsi->cache_validity |= save_cache_validity &
> NFS_INO_INVALID_ATTR;
> + cache_revalidated = false;
> + }
>
> /* More cache consistency checks */
> if (fattr->valid & NFS_ATTR_FATTR_CHANGE) {
Thanks! Applied to linux-next...
��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{��w��� jg��� �����ݢj����G���� ���j:+v���w�m������w�������h�����٥
