Return-Path: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:23536 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751440Ab3BOVpt (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Feb 2013 16:45:49 -0500 Message-ID: <511EAC8B.3050403@RedHat.com> Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 16:45:47 -0500 From: Steve Dickson MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "J. Bruce Fields" CC: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: V4 unmount causes a GETATTR References: <511E5838.2020103@RedHat.com> <20130215182531.GB19923@fieldses.org> In-Reply-To: <20130215182531.GB19923@fieldses.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 15/02/13 13:25, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 10:46:00AM -0500, Steve Dickson wrote: >> Hello, >> >> I have not tracked down as to the exact reason, >> but it appears umount of v4 file system cause the >> directory to be revalidating causing the GETATTR. >> >> Is this revalidation really necessary on an unmount? > > I don't know, maybe not. But even if it's not, there are other things > (like cleaning up state) that the client will likely try to do on > unmount. In the presence of delegations it could have dirty data that > it's required to write back even if applications don't currently hold > any open files. Understood with dirty data... but what I as seeing was a v4 mount and then a reboot with no activity on the mount point... > > So I don't think we can promise umount will work without the network. Again with open files (aka activity on the mount point) I agree but with no activity or open files, I'm think that GETATTR is simply not necessary... steved.