Return-Path: Received: from mexforward.lss.emc.com ([128.222.32.20]:14280 "EHLO mexforward.lss.emc.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753596Ab1IMIdA convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Sep 2011 04:33:00 -0400 From: To: , CC: , , , Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 04:32:18 -0400 Subject: RE: [PATCH] nfs: fix inifinite loop at nfs4_layoutcommit_release Message-ID: References: <1314512558-16912-1-git-send-email-gusev.vitaliy@nexenta.com> <1315337382.16274.7.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> <4E669B21.30006@nexenta.com> <1315348373.19556.22.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> <2E1EB2CF9ED1CB4AA966F0EB76EAB4430B0ED3DF@SACMVEXC2-PRD.hq.netapp.com> <2E1EB2CF9ED1CB4AA966F0EB76EAB4430B0ED4C8@SACMVEXC2-PRD.hq.netapp.com> <1315592430.17611.15.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> <4E6B0E48.7050208@tonian.com> <4E6E6C3B.2040605@tonian.com> <1315861851.8350.11.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> <4E6F0B61.4050907@tonian.com> In-Reply-To: <4E6F0B61.4050907@tonian.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 > -----Original Message----- > From: Benny Halevy [mailto:bhalevy@tonian.com] > Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 3:51 PM > To: Trond Myklebust > Cc: Peng Tao; Peng, Tao; gusev.vitaliy@nexenta.com; gusev.vitaliy@gmail.com; > linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org > Subject: Re: [PATCH] nfs: fix inifinite loop at nfs4_layoutcommit_release > > On 2011-09-12 14:10, Trond Myklebust wrote: > > On Mon, 2011-09-12 at 13:31 -0700, Benny Halevy wrote: > >> On 2011-09-12 07:56, Peng Tao wrote: > >>>> The layout segments are not really in use while in LAYOUTCOMMIT. > >>>> We only need to get the stateid right with respect to concurrent layout recalls. > >>> LAYOUTCOMMIT takes lseg reference to mark them as in use so that > >>> layoutrecall cannot free them. > >>> > >> > >> And if layoutrecall would have freed layout segments during layoutcommit, > >> what is your specific concern? > > > > That layoutcommit is supposed to return NFS4ERR_BAD_LAYOUT in that case > > according to section 18.42.3 of RFC5661. I can't find anything in the > > errata that changes that requirement. > > > > Right. That tells me there no need to strictly serialize LAYOUTCOMMITs > with CB_LAYOUTRECALL, as long as the layout stateid sent with LAYOUTCOMMIT > atomically represents the state when the operation was prepared. > > That said, since we do want the LAYOUTCOMMIT to succeed, it would be beneficial > for the client to reply to a CB_LAYOUTRECALL received while a conflicting > LAYOUTCOMMIT is in progress with NFS4ERR_DELAY. I agree. How about adding a new flag to nfsi->flags for this? We can use the same flag on to ensure serialization of multiple layoutcommit. nfs_commit_set_lock/nfs_commit_clear_lock may not fit for this. > > The server, on its side, should prevent a distributed deadlock by avoiding > blocking of a LAYOUTCOMMIT on an outstanding CB_LAYOUTRECALL for the same > client that sent the LAYOUTCOMMIT. I'm not sure what error would be best to > return. Maybe NFS4ERR_RECALL_CONFLICT if it would be allowed (it isn't listed > for LAYOUTCOMMIT at the moment). Just returning NFS4ER_DELAY might lead to > a live lock situation where neither the LAYOUTCOMMIT not the CB_LAYOUTRECALL > complete. > > Benny