Return-Path: Received: from fieldses.org ([173.255.197.46]:48357 "EHLO fieldses.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752823AbbIASIt (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Sep 2015 14:08:49 -0400 Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 14:08:49 -0400 To: Andrew W Elble Cc: Jeff Layton , linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, etmsys@rit.edu Subject: Re: [PATCH] nfsd: deal with DELEGRETURN racing with CB_RECALL Message-ID: <20150901180849.GB1948@fieldses.org> References: <1441037201-78787-1-git-send-email-aweits@rit.edu> <20150901091842.7c40adf3@tlielax.poochiereds.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: From: bfields@fieldses.org (J. Bruce Fields) Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 10:48:27AM -0400, Andrew W Elble wrote: > > I should probably state what I'm currently chasing: > > 1.) Somehow, delegations wind up on the cl_revoked list at the server. > 2.) The server continually asserts SEQ4_STATUS_RECALLABLE_STATE_REVOKED. > 3.) The client for some reason doesn't have anything to give the server > to satisfy it. > > I speculate that this patch will assist in making this go away - I'm > just not 100% sure of all the conditions that result in making #1 possible. > (Enough recalls backed up on the callback slot on the same filehandle > stacking timeouts/retries and resultant path down errors to exceed lease > time?). Even in the worst case where the client never gets the recall, in theory it should take the RECALLABLE_STATE_REVOKED as a sign that it's missed one and return its delegations. Is the client attempting any such recovery when it sees that flag? > Unfortunately this problem seems to always occur at ~1AM - and > obtaining a network capture of the problem in action has been elusive. Anyway, sounds interesting, let us know what you find.... --b.