On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 11:49 AM Benjamin Coddington <bcodding@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 22 Sep 2020, at 10:43, Anna Schumaker wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 10:31 AM Anna Schumaker > > <anna.schumaker@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 10:22 AM Benjamin Coddington > >> <bcodding@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> > >>> On 22 Sep 2020, at 10:03, Anna Schumaker wrote: > >>>> Hi Ben, > >>>> > >>>> Once I apply this patch I have trouble with generic/478 doing lock > >>>> reclaim: > >>>> > >>>> [ 937.460505] run fstests generic/478 at 2020-09-22 09:59:14 > >>>> [ 937.607990] NFS: __nfs4_reclaim_open_state: Lock reclaim failed! > >>>> > >>>> And the test just hangs until I kill it. > >>>> > >>>> Just thought you should know! > >>> > >>> Yes, thanks! I'm not seeing that.. I've tested these based on > >>> v5.8.4, I'll > >>> rebase and check again. I see a wirecap of generic/478 is only 515K > >>> on my > >>> system, would you be willing to share a capture of your test > >>> failing? > >> > >> I have it based on v5.9-rc6 (plus the patches I have queued up for > >> v5.10), so there definitely could be a difference there! I'm using a > >> stock kernel on my server, though :) > >> > >> I can definitely get you a packet trace once I re-apply the patch and > >> rerun the test. > > > > Here's the packet trace, I reran the test with just this patch applied > > on top of v5.9-rc6 so it's not interacting with something else in my > > tree. Looks like it's ending up in an NFS4ERR_OLD_STATEID loop. > > Thanks very much! > > Did you see this failure with all three patches applied, or just with > the > first patch? I saw it with the first patch applied, and with the first and third applied. I initially hit it as I was wrapping up for the day yesterday, but I left out #2 since I saw your retraction > > I see the client get two OPEN responses, but then is sending > TEST_STATEID > with the first seqid. Seems like seqid 2 is getting lost. I wonder if > we're making a bad assumption that NFS_OPEN_STATE can only be toggled > under > the so_lock. > > Ben >
