On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 11:24:43AM +0300, Vasily Averin wrote: > nfsd and lockd use F_SETLK cmd with the FL_SLEEP flag set to request > asynchronous processing of blocking locks. > > Currently nfs4 use locks_lock_inode_wait() function which is blocked > for such requests. To handle them correctly FL_SLEEP flag should be > temporarily reset before executing the locks_lock_inode_wait() function. > > Additionally block flag is forced to set, to translate blocking lock to > remote nfs server, expecting it supports async processing of the blocking > locks too. But this on its own isn't enough for the client to support asynchronous blocking locks, right? Don't we also need the logic that calls knfsd's lm_notify when it gets a CB_NOTIFY_LOCK from the server? --b. > > https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=215383 > Signed-off-by: Vasily Averin <vvs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c | 5 ++++- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c > index ee3bc79f6ca3..9b1380c4223c 100644 > --- a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c > +++ b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c > @@ -7094,7 +7094,7 @@ static int _nfs4_do_setlk(struct nfs4_state *state, int cmd, struct file_lock *f > recovery_type == NFS_LOCK_NEW ? GFP_KERNEL : GFP_NOFS); > if (data == NULL) > return -ENOMEM; > - if (IS_SETLKW(cmd)) > + if (IS_SETLKW(cmd) || (fl->fl_flags & FL_SLEEP)) > data->arg.block = 1; > nfs4_init_sequence(&data->arg.seq_args, &data->res.seq_res, 1, > recovery_type > NFS_LOCK_NEW); > @@ -7200,6 +7200,9 @@ static int _nfs4_proc_setlk(struct nfs4_state *state, int cmd, struct file_lock > int status; > > request->fl_flags |= FL_ACCESS; > + if (((fl_flags & FL_SLEEP_POSIX) == FL_SLEEP_POSIX) && IS_SETLK(cmd)) > + request->fl_flags &= ~FL_SLEEP; > + > status = locks_lock_inode_wait(state->inode, request); > if (status < 0) > goto out; > -- > 2.25.1
