On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 3:57 PM, Trond Myklebust <trondmy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On Sep 23, 2016, at 15:27, Olga Kornievskaia <aglo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 3:07 PM, Trond Myklebust >> <trondmy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>>> On Sep 23, 2016, at 14:41, Olga Kornievskaia <aglo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 2:34 PM, Trond Myklebust >>>> <trondmy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Sep 23, 2016, at 14:25, Olga Kornievskaia <aglo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 2:08 PM, Trond Myklebust >>>>>> <trondmy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sep 23, 2016, at 13:59, Olga Kornievskaia <aglo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Trond Myklebust >>>>>>>> <trondmy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Sep 23, 2016, at 13:40, Olga Kornievskaia <aglo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If we instead bump the sequence number in the case of interrupted and do: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You have no guarantees that the server has seen and processed the operation. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That is correct, i have tested the patch and made server never to >>>>>>>> receive the operation and client have an interrupted slot. On the next >>>>>>>> operation the server will complain back with SEQ_MISORDERED. Client >>>>>>>> can recover from this operation. Client can not recover from "Remote >>>>>>>> EIO”. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why not? >>>>>> >>>>>> When XDR layer returns EREMOTEIO it's not handled by the NFS error >>>>>> recovery (are you suggesting we should?) and returns that to the >>>>>> application. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I’m saying that if we get a SEQ_MISORDERED due to a previous interrupt on that slot, then we should ignore the error in task->tk_status, and just retry after bumping the slot seqid. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I'm confused where your objection lies. Are you ok with bumping the >>>> sequence # when task->tk_status = 1 and saying that we should still >>>> keep the code that I deleted in the 2nd chunk of the patch that bumped >>>> the seqid on getting SEQ_MISORDERED due to a previously interrupted >>>> slot? >>>> Wouldn't that create a difference of 2 slots for the server that has >>>> received the original request? >>>> >>> >>> I’m saying I’d prefer to keep the current code, but fix the retry that is apparently broken. If we’re not ignoring the task->tk_error when we decide to retry, then that’s a bug in my opinion. >> >> I'm not understand what you are suggestion. I do better with example >> so allow me: >> >> REMOVE used slot 0 seq=00000036 received ctrl-c >> nfs41_sequence_done() gets called task->tk_status = 1: >> slot->interrupted is set to 1. slot is freed. >> >> next operation comes in, in my case it's ACCESS. initialization of the >> sequence uses slot 0 seq=00000036 >> server replies with REMOVE >> >> client code xdr in decode_op_hrs() returns EREMOTEIO. decode_access() >> returns EREMOTEIO. handle error just returns that error. >> >> where do we retry? >> > > The retry should be happening when we exit from nfs41_sequence_done() by restarting the RPC. Are you suggestion that REMOVE is retried? Ok I can see that (though I'm not sure why a killed task suppose to be retried. Wasn't it killed for a reason?). But if you are saying ACCESS should be retried then I don't see how it can fit into the code flow. -- 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
