[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKYAXd9QyKtH7ZvCJs=X2DxhDn9_THXUooWVCWkxuEhizWgmsA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 20:57:14 +0900
From: Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@...il.com>
To: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
Cc: viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
michael.brantley@...haw.com, hch@...radead.org, miklos@...redi.hu,
pstaubach@...grid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 00/19] vfs: add the ability to retry on ESTALE to
several syscalls
Hi Jeff.
I still found ESTALE error although patching these patch-set.
Is test method correct that I try to run estale_test on each nfs
server and client at the same time ?
./estale_test
chmod: Stale NFS[ 281.720000] ##### send signal from USER, SIG : 2,
estale_test(107)->estale_test(102) sys_kill
[ 281.728000] ##### send signal from USER, SIG : 15,
estale_test(102)->estale_test(103) sys_kill
[ 281.736000] ##### send signal from USER, SIG : 15,
estale_test(102)->estale_test(104) sys_kill
[ 281.744000] ##### send signal from USER, SIG : 15,
estale_test(102)->estale_test(105) sys_kill
[ 281.752000] ##### send signal from USER, SIG : 15,
estale_test(102)->estale_test(106) sys_kill
[ 281.760000] ##### send signal from USER, SIG : 15,
estale_test(102)->estale_test(107) sys_kill
[ 281.768000] ##### send signal from USER, SIG : 15,
estale_test(102)->estale_test(108) sys_kill
[ 281.780000] ##### send signal from USER, SIG : 15,
estale_test(102)->estale_test(109) sys_kill
[ 281.788000] ##### send signal from USER, SIG : 15,
estale_test(102)->estale_test(110) sys_kill
[ 281.796000] ##### send signal from USER, SIG : 15,
estale_test(102)->estale_test(111) sys_kill
[ 281.804000] ##### send signal from USER, SIG : 15,
estale_test(102)->estale_test(112) sys_kill
[ 281.812000] ##### send signal from USER, SIG : 15,
estale_test(102)->estale_test(113) sys_kill
[ 281.820000] ##### send signal from USER, SIG : 15,
estale_test(102)->estale_test(114) sys_kill
[ 281.828000] ##### send signal from USER, SIG : 15,
estale_test(102)->estale_test(115) sys_kill
[ 281.840000] ##### send signal from USER, SIG : 15,
estale_test(102)->estale_test(116) sys_kill
[ 281.848000] ##### send signal from USER, SIG : 15,
estale_test(102)->estale_test(117) sys_kill
[ 281.856000] ##### send signal from USER, SIG : 15,
estale_test(102)->estale_test(118) sys_kill
[ 281.864000] ##### send signal from USER, SIG : 15,
estale_test(102)->estale_test(119) sys_kill
file handle
VDLinux#> chdir: Stale NFS[ 282.664000] ##### send signal from USER,
SIG : 2, estale_test(120)->???(102) sys_kill
file handle
Thanks.
2012/8/8, Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>:
> This patchset is a respin of the one I sent on July 26th. The main
> reason for the resend is to deal with some recent changes in namei.c
> that created some merge conflicts.
>
> This series depends on the "audit" series that I also sent on July 26th.
> That set didn't need any changes, so I'm not planning to resend it.
>
> This set is also available via the "estale" branch of my git tree:
>
> git://git.samba.org/jlayton/linux.git estale
>
> I'd like to see this go in for 3.7 if at all possible.
>
> The original cover letter text follows:
>
> ESTALE errors are a source of pain for many users, primarily those who
> are doing work on NFS. When userspace provides a path to a syscall, then
> there's really little excuse for returning ESTALE. If userspace gave us
> a path that we had to lookup in order to do the call, then it's not
> particularly helpful to return ESTALE just because that path went stale
> before we could do the actual operation.
>
> We can and should do better here. The kernel should instead catch that
> error and retry the lookup and call, while forcing a revalidation of all
> dentries involved.
>
> Unfortunately fixing this requires touching the syscalls themselves, or
> at least their immediate helper functions. Not all syscalls can be
> retried -- only those that take a pathname as an argument.
>
> With this patchset, I've decided to take the relatively less
> controversial approach of just having the kernel retry once when it gets
> an ESTALE error. I still think that it's not as strong as it should be,
> but it should improve the situation in many common cases.
>
> I've also tried to engineer this in such a way that if we do decide that
> we need to retry more than once, then it should be easy to change that
> later. This should cover all of the syscalls in fs/stat.c and
> fs/namei.c, and a few from fs/open.c.
>
> Once these are merged, I'll look at adding similar handling to other
> path-based syscalls in a later set. A quick look shows that we have
> about 50-odd path-based syscalls that will need similar handling, so
> this is just a start.
>
> Jeff Layton (19):
> vfs: add a retry_estale helper function to handle retries on ESTALE
> vfs: add a kern_path_at function
> vfs: make fstatat retry on ESTALE errors from getattr call
> vfs: fix readlinkat to retry on ESTALE
> vfs: remove user_path_at_empty
> vfs: turn "empty" arg in getname_flags into a bool
> vfs: add new "reval" argument to kern_path_create
> vfs: fix mknodat to retry on ESTALE errors
> vfs: fix mkdir to retry on ESTALE errors
> vfs: fix symlinkat to retry on ESTALE errors
> vfs: fix linkat to retry on ESTALE errors
> vfs: make rmdir retry on ESTALE errors
> vfs: make do_unlinkat retry on ESTALE errors
> vfs: fix renameat to retry on ESTALE errors
> vfs: remove user_path_parent
> vfs: have do_sys_truncate retry once on an ESTALE error
> vfs: have faccessat retry once on an ESTALE error
> vfs: have chdir retry lookup and call once on ESTALE error
> vfs: make chroot retry once on ESTALE error
>
> drivers/base/devtmpfs.c | 7 +-
> fs/namei.c | 357
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------
> fs/open.c | 234 ++++++++++++++++++-------------
> fs/stat.c | 44 ++++--
> include/linux/fs.h | 22 +++
> include/linux/namei.h | 4 +-
> net/unix/af_unix.c | 2 +-
> 7 files changed, 422 insertions(+), 248 deletions(-)
>
> --
> 1.7.11.2
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists