On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 10:22 PM, Trond Myklebust
<trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no> wrote:
quoted text
> On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 20:03 +0100, Al Viro wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 07:36:45PM +0100, Daniel J Blueman wrote:
>> > Hi Trond,
>> >
>> > When open fails and should return EPERM [1], instead we see an oops
>> > [2]. I see this on 2.6.34-rc1 and -rc2 mainline; NFS4 server is
>> > mainline 2.6.33.1.
>> >
>> > Let me know if you can't reproduce it and I'll provide some analysis
>> > from this end.
>>
>> Joy...  ERR_PTR(-EPERM) in nd.intent.file, and whoever had called
>> lookup_instantiate_filp() hadn't bothered to check the return value.
>>
>> OK, I think I see what's going on.  Replace
>>                                 lookup_instantiate_filp(nd, (struct dentry *)state, NULL);
>>                                 return 1;
>> with
>>                                 lookup_instantiate_filp(nd, (struct dentry *)state, NULL);
>>                                 return state;
>> in fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c:nfs4_open_revalidate() and see if everything works
>> properly (or just lose the lookup_instantiate_filp() in there and simply
>> return state).
>
> So this raises a point. Originally, the d_revalidate() call was required
> to return a boolean 0 or 1. Nowadays it allows the filesystem to return
> an error value instead.
>
> Should we therefore rewrite the NFS implementation to propagate errors
> like ESTALE (when it means the parent directory is gone), EACCES, EPERM
> and EIO instead of the current behaviour of just dropping the dentry and
> hence forcing a lookup?

Passing the error back without forcing a lookup sounds like a good
win, if it can avoid a comparatively expensive roundtrip to the server
(iff the dentry is fresh enough). Is this possible?

Talking of expensive, I see latencytop show >16000ms latency for
writing pages when I have a workload that does large buffered I/O to
an otherwise uncongested server. The gigabit network is saturated, and
reads often stall for 1000-4000ms (!). Client has the default 16 TCP
request slots, and server has 8 nfsds - the server is far from disk or
processor-saturated. I'll see if there is any useful debugging I can
get about this.

Thanks,
  Daniel
-- 
Daniel J Blueman
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/