On Fri, 2021-10-15 at 08:03 +0000, Trond Myklebust wrote: > On Fri, 2021-10-15 at 09:51 +1100, NeilBrown wrote: > > On Fri, 15 Oct 2021, Trond Myklebust wrote: > > > On Tue, 2021-10-12 at 08:57 +1100, NeilBrown wrote: > > > > On Tue, 12 Oct 2021, Chuck Lever III wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Scott seems well positioned to identify a reproducer. Maybe > > > > > we > > > > > can give him some likely candidates for possible bugs to > > > > > explore > > > > > first. > > > > > > > > Has this patch been tried? > > > > > > > > NeilBrown > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/net/sunrpc/sched.c b/net/sunrpc/sched.c > > > > index c045f63d11fa..308f5961cb78 100644 > > > > --- a/net/sunrpc/sched.c > > > > +++ b/net/sunrpc/sched.c > > > > @@ -814,6 +814,7 @@ rpc_reset_task_statistics(struct rpc_task > > > > *task) > > > > { > > > > task->tk_timeouts = 0; > > > > task->tk_flags &= ~(RPC_CALL_MAJORSEEN|RPC_TASK_SENT); > > > > + clear_bit(RPC_TASK_SIGNALLED, &task->tk_runstate); > > > > rpc_init_task_st > > > > > > We shouldn't automatically "unsignal" a task once it has been > > > told > > > to > > > die. The correct thing to do here should rather be to change > > > rpc_restart_call() to exit early if the task was signalled. > > > > > > > Maybe. It depends on exactly what the signal meant > > (rpc_killall_tasks() > > is a bit different from getting a SIGKILL), and exactly what the > > task > > is > > trying to achieve. > > > > Before Commit ae67bd3821bb ("SUNRPC: Fix up task signalling") > > that is exactly what we did. > > If we want to change the behaviour of a task responding to > > rpc_killall_tasks(), we should clearly justify it in a patch doing > > exactly that. > > > > The intention behind rpc_killall_tasks() never changed, which is why > it ("it" being the error ERESTARTSYS) > is listed in nfs_error_is_fatal(). I'm not aware of any case where we > deliberately override in order to restart the RPC call on an > ERESTARTSYS error. > > -- Trond Myklebust Linux NFS client maintainer, Hammerspace trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx