Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1162874AbdD0Qex (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Apr 2017 12:34:53 -0400 Received: from scorn.kernelslacker.org ([45.56.101.199]:33032 "EHLO scorn.kernelslacker.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S938633AbdD0Qeq (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Apr 2017 12:34:46 -0400 Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 12:34:44 -0400 From: Dave Jones To: Al Viro , Linux Kernel Subject: Re: iov_iter_pipe warning. Message-ID: <20170427163444.6pbuyhgasydvtj24@codemonkey.org.uk> Mail-Followup-To: Dave Jones , Al Viro , Linux Kernel References: <20170412011532.GN29622@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20170412022911.nhefjqlnyrk3n7rr@codemonkey.org.uk> <20170412025842.GO29622@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20170412143519.4hh36l3egozgdrll@codemonkey.org.uk> <20170412152600.GP29622@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20170412162709.bn5qfk4seues3yos@codemonkey.org.uk> <20170412170723.GQ29622@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20170412190318.srkkdytf2ebrjzrg@codemonkey.org.uk> <20170421175430.GT29622@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20170427041918.ts33j22wm352xjni@codemonkey.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170427041918.ts33j22wm352xjni@codemonkey.org.uk> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170306 (1.8.0) X-Spam-Note: SpamAssassin invocation failed Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1107 Lines: 26 On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 12:19:18AM -0400, Dave Jones wrote: > On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 06:54:30PM +0100, Al Viro wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 03:03:18PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote: > > > > > Well it's been running an hour without incident, which looks promising. > > > I'll leave it run, but I'd say you're on the right track given how quick > > > it reproduced so far. > > > > Could you try this and see if it works? What happens is that unlike > > e.g. generic_file_read_iter/generic_file_write_iter, NFS O_DIRECT handling > > does not make sure that iov_iter had been advanced by the amount > > actually transferred - it is left advanced by the amount *requested*. > > Sorry for delay on this, been sick. Just gave this a run for 12 hours. > Looks good to me. Actually.. client seems fine, but I've noticed these on the server now.. [977286.117268] RPC request reserved 116 but used 268 [1918138.126285] RPC request reserved 200 but used 268 [2327777.483077] RPC request reserved 200 but used 268 [2327800.909007] RPC request reserved 200 but used 268 related ? Dave