Return-Path: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: from e36.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.154]:58506 "EHLO e36.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758653Ab3JQSXy (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Oct 2013 14:23:54 -0400 Received: from /spool/local by e36.co.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 12:23:53 -0600 In-Reply-To: <52602835.4000701@candelatech.com> References: <525D899F.5010604@candelatech.com> <52601FED.6070708@candelatech.com> <1382033137.3216.3.camel@leira.trondhjem.org> <52602835.4000701@candelatech.com> To: Ben Greear Cc: "Myklebust, Trond" , "linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org" , linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: 'umount -f /mnt/foo' fails if server IP is gone. Message-ID: From: Christopher T Vogan Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 13:23:49 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: I have reported 2 scenarios related to this issue, the second topic being more relevant to your problem. vfs: allow umount to handle mountpoints without revalidating them and NFSERR_STALE on umount with 3.10.0.RC5 kernel Christopher Vogan NFS Development & Test From: Ben Greear To: "Myklebust, Trond" , Cc: "linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org" Date: 10/17/2013 01:14 PM Subject: Re: 'umount -f /mnt/foo' fails if server IP is gone. Sent by: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org On 10/17/2013 11:05 AM, Myklebust, Trond wrote: > On Thu, 2013-10-17 at 10:35 -0700, Ben Greear wrote: >> On 10/15/2013 11:29 AM, Ben Greear wrote: >>> Is 'umount -f' supposed to always work, even if the file server >>> goes away? >>> >>> I have a user's system that just hangs forever in this case. >>> >>> Could be local changes we have made, but I'm curious about >>> the expected behaviour before I go digging too deep... >> >> Any input on this? I don't mind trying to fix it, but I >> would like to know how it is supposed to work. > > 'umount -f' has always been iffy. It just kills any pending RPC calls > _before_ trying to unmount. Since the unmount itself can trigger > writeback flushes (and hence more RPC calls), the trace you are seeing > is indeed possible. I tried 'umount -f -l', and that also does not work. Any ideas on how to fix this properly? Thanks, Ben -- Ben Greear Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html