Return-Path: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: from e7.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.137]:49851 "EHLO e7.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751821Ab2DMPGU (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Apr 2012 11:06:20 -0400 Received: from /spool/local by e7.ny.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 11:06:18 -0400 Received: from d01relay06.pok.ibm.com (d01relay06.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.116]) by d01dlp02.pok.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BE786E8060 for ; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 11:05:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (d03av01.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.167]) by d01relay06.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id q3DF5aqV2064606 for ; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 11:05:37 -0400 Received: from d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id q3DF5URE007699 for ; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 09:05:31 -0600 Received: from malahal (malahal.austin.ibm.com [9.53.40.203]) by d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVin) with ESMTP id q3DF5Rwr006341 for ; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 09:05:27 -0600 Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 10:05:18 -0500 From: Malahal Naineni To: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] vfs: make fstatat retry on ESTALE errors from getattr call Message-ID: <20120413150518.GA1987@us.ibm.com> References: <1334316311-22331-1-git-send-email-jlayton@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <1334316311-22331-1-git-send-email-jlayton@redhat.com> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Jeff Layton [jlayton@redhat.com] wrote: > 1) should we retry these calls on all filesystems, or attempt to have > them "opt-in" in some fashion? This patch adds a flag for that, but > we could just treat all filesystems the same way. I don't know any cases where a retry on ESTALE would hurt. I would say retry on all file systems the same way. > 2) How many times should we retry on an ESTALE error? Once? > Indefinitely? Some amount in between? Retrying once would probably > fix the bulk of the real world problems with this, but there will > still be cases where that's not sufficient. As you say 1 retry should work in most cases. Indefinitely doesn't make sense, I would rather let my application fail! How about 3 retries (3 is a nice number! :-) ) Regards, Malahal.