On Tue, 2019-03-12 at 20:04 +0000, Schumaker, Anna wrote:
> Hi Trond,
>
> I'm seeing a hang when testing xfstests generic/013 on v4.1 with pNFS
> after this
> patch:
>
> On Wed, 2018-09-05 at 14:07 -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> > If someone interrupts a wait on one or more outstanding layoutgets
> > in
> > pnfs_update_layout() then return the ERESTARTSYS/EINTR error.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > fs/nfs/pnfs.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++----------
> > 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/nfs/pnfs.c b/fs/nfs/pnfs.c
> > index e8f232de484f..7d9a51e6b847 100644
> > --- a/fs/nfs/pnfs.c
> > +++ b/fs/nfs/pnfs.c
> > @@ -1740,16 +1740,16 @@ static bool pnfs_within_mdsthreshold(struct
> > nfs_open_context *ctx,
> > return ret;
> > }
> >
> > -static bool pnfs_prepare_to_retry_layoutget(struct pnfs_layout_hdr
> > *lo)
> > +static int pnfs_prepare_to_retry_layoutget(struct pnfs_layout_hdr
> > *lo)
> > {
> > /*
> > * send layoutcommit as it can hold up layoutreturn due to lseg
> > * reference
> > */
> > pnfs_layoutcommit_inode(lo->plh_inode, false);
> > - return !wait_on_bit_action(&lo->plh_flags, NFS_LAYOUT_RETURN,
> > + return wait_on_bit_action(&lo->plh_flags, NFS_LAYOUT_RETURN,
> > nfs_wait_bit_killable,
> > - TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
> > + TASK_KILLABLE);
> > }
> >
> > static void nfs_layoutget_begin(struct pnfs_layout_hdr *lo)
> > @@ -1830,7 +1830,9 @@ pnfs_update_layout(struct inode *ino,
> > }
> >
> > lookup_again:
> > - nfs4_client_recover_expired_lease(clp);
> > + lseg = ERR_PTR(nfs4_client_recover_expired_lease(clp));
> > + if (IS_ERR(lseg))
> > + goto out;
> > first = false;
> > spin_lock(&ino->i_lock);
> > lo = pnfs_find_alloc_layout(ino, ctx, gfp_flags);
> > @@ -1863,9 +1865,9 @@ pnfs_update_layout(struct inode *ino,
> > if (list_empty(&lo->plh_segs) &&
> > atomic_read(&lo->plh_outstanding) != 0) {
> > spin_unlock(&ino->i_lock);
> > - if (wait_var_event_killable(&lo->plh_outstanding,
> > - atomic_read(&lo-
> > >plh_outstanding) == 0
> > - || !list_empty(&lo->plh_segs)))
> > + lseg = ERR_PTR(wait_var_event_killable(&lo-
> > >plh_outstanding,
> > + atomic_read(&lo-
> > >plh_outstanding)));
> > + if (IS_ERR(lseg) || !list_empty(&lo->plh_segs))
>
> Was dropping the "== 0" condition attached to the atomic_read() here
> a mistake?
> I think what's happening is that my client is waiting for
> plh_outstanding to be
> anything other than 0 when there isn't any work left to do.
Yes. That's a bug. How about the following patch?
8<---------------------------------------------------
>From 400417b05f3ec0531544ca5f94e64d838d8b8849 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2019 16:04:51 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] pNFS: Fix a typo in pnfs_update_layout
We're supposed to wait for the outstanding layout count to go to zero,
but that got lost somehow.
Fixes: d03360aaf5cca ("pNFS: Ensure we return the error if someone...")
Reported-by: Anna Schumaker <Anna.Schumaker@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
fs/nfs/pnfs.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/fs/nfs/pnfs.c b/fs/nfs/pnfs.c
index 8247bd1634cb..7066cd7c7aff 100644
--- a/fs/nfs/pnfs.c
+++ b/fs/nfs/pnfs.c
@@ -1889,7 +1889,7 @@ pnfs_update_layout(struct inode *ino,
atomic_read(&lo->plh_outstanding) != 0) {
spin_unlock(&ino->i_lock);
lseg = ERR_PTR(wait_var_event_killable(&lo->plh_outstanding,
- atomic_read(&lo->plh_outstanding)));
+ !atomic_read(&lo->plh_outstanding)));
if (IS_ERR(lseg) || !list_empty(&lo->plh_segs))
goto out_put_layout_hdr;
pnfs_put_layout_hdr(lo);
--
2.20.1
--
Trond Myklebust
Linux NFS client maintainer, Hammerspace
trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
