4.7-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------ From: Trond Myklebust <[email protected]> commit 66b53f325876703b7ab815c482cd104609f8772c upstream. Instead of giving up altogether and falling back to doing I/O through the MDS, which may make the situation worse, wait for 2 lease periods for the callback to resolve itself, and then try destroying the existing layout. Only if this was an attempt at getting a first layout, do we give up altogether, as the server is clearly crazy. Fixes: 183d9e7b112aa ("pnfs: rework LAYOUTGET retry handling") Signed-off-by: Trond Myklebust <[email protected]> Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]> --- fs/nfs/pnfs.c | 13 +++++++++++-- 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) --- a/fs/nfs/pnfs.c +++ b/fs/nfs/pnfs.c @@ -1505,7 +1505,7 @@ pnfs_update_layout(struct inode *ino, struct pnfs_layout_segment *lseg = NULL; nfs4_stateid stateid; long timeout = 0; - unsigned long giveup = jiffies + rpc_get_timeout(server->client); + unsigned long giveup = jiffies + (clp->cl_lease_time << 1); bool first; if (!pnfs_enabled_sb(NFS_SERVER(ino))) { @@ -1649,9 +1649,18 @@ lookup_again: if (IS_ERR(lseg)) { switch(PTR_ERR(lseg)) { case -EBUSY: - case -ERECALLCONFLICT: if (time_after(jiffies, giveup)) lseg = NULL; + break; + case -ERECALLCONFLICT: + /* Huh? We hold no layouts, how is there a recall? */ + if (first) { + lseg = NULL; + break; + } + /* Destroy the existing layout and start over */ + if (time_after(jiffies, giveup)) + pnfs_destroy_layout(NFS_I(ino)); /* Fallthrough */ case -EAGAIN: break;
