Return-Path: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: from relay.parallels.com ([195.214.232.42]:33956 "EHLO relay.parallels.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752594Ab3APFUO (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Jan 2013 00:20:14 -0500 Message-ID: <50F63882.8000607@parallels.com> Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 09:20:02 +0400 From: Stanislav Kinsbursky MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "J. Bruce Fields" , Mark Lord CC: , Linux Kernel Subject: Re: BUG at net/sunrpc/svc_xprt.c:921 References: <50F42F85.50907@teksavvy.com> <20130114203711.GA29982@fieldses.org> <50F4D800.5040703@teksavvy.com> <20130115205625.GH4940@fieldses.org> In-Reply-To: <20130115205625.GH4940@fieldses.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 16.01.2013 00:56, J. Bruce Fields пишет: > On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 11:16:00PM -0500, Mark Lord wrote: >> On 13-01-14 03:37 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote: >>> Thanks for the report. >>> >>> On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 11:17:09AM -0500, Mark Lord wrote: >>>> Since upgrading to 3.7, and now 3.7.2, my AMD-450E based server >>> >>> It's acting as an NFS client, right? >> >> Client and server, with other Linux boxes all running 3.something kernels. >> >>> What did you upgrade from? >> >> 3.4.something, I believe. >> >>>> is getting these BUG complaints. The .config file is gzip'd/attached. >>> >>> Is this easy to reproduce? >> >> So far, it seems to pop up within a day or so of any reboot. >> I normally only reboot that system for a kernel upgrade, >> but can do so a bit more often if there's useful info to collect. > > So this means svc_delete_xprt was called on an xprt twice. > > That could happen if server threads are still running (and calling > svc_recv) after we start shutting down the server: svc_shutdown_net > assumes that server threads are already shut down, but that isn't true > any more after the containerization work. > > I thought that would only be a bug for users actually running multiple > containers, but looking at nfs_callback_down, I don't think that's > true--it seems to always shut down the thread last. > Thanks, Bruce. It reminds me the patch with additional protection for permanents sockets shutdown I've sent you a couple of mount ago... Look like I should revisit this patch at least. Mark, could you provide any call traces? > --b. > -- Best regards, Stanislav Kinsbursky