Any chance we could get the patch below (or something similar) pushed into 2.6.19?
On 21/11/06, Jesper Juhl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 21/08/06, Trond Myklebust <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 2006-08-21 at 13:34 +1000, Neil Brown wrote: > > Looking in fs/nfs/file.c (at 2.6.18-rc4-mm1 if it matters, but 2.6.17 > > is much the same) > > > > - do_vfs_lock is only called when the filesystem was mounted with > > -o nolock EXCEPT > > - If a lock request to the server in interrupted (when mounted with > > -o intr) then do_vfs_lock is called to try to get the lock > > locally. Normally equivalent code will be called inside > > fs/lockd/clntproc.c when the server replies that the lock has been > > gained. In the case of an interrupt though this doesn't happen > > but the lock may still have happened on the server. So we record > > locally that the lock was gained, to ensure that it gets unlocked > > when the process exits. > > > > As you don't have '-o nolocks' you must be hitting the second case. > > The lock call to the server returns -EINTR or -ERESTARTSYS and > > do_vfs_lock is called just-in-case. > > As this is a just-in-case call, it is quite possible that the lock is > > held by some other process, so getting an error is entirely possible. > > So printing the message in this case seems wrong. > > > > On the other hand, printing the message in any other case seems wrong > > too, as server locking is not being used, so there is nothing to get > > out of sync with. > > > > As a further complication, I don't think that in the just-in-case > > situation that it should risk waiting for the lock. > > Now maybe we can be sure there is a pending signal which will break > > out of any wait (though I'm worried about -ERESTARTSYS - that doesn't > > imply a signal does it?), but I would feel more comfortable if > > FL_SLEEP were turned off in that path. > > > > So: Trond: Any obvious errors in the above? > > Is the following patch ok? > > Could we instead replace it with a dprintk() that returns the value of > "res"? That will keep it useful for debugging purposes. > How about the below? (compile tested only) Neil: I left your Signed-off-by line since I just modified your patch slightly. Since Gmail will probably mangle the inline patch, it is attached as well. Signed-off-by: Neil Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Signed-off-by: Jesper Juhl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- fs/nfs/file.c | 11 +++++++---- 1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/nfs/file.c b/fs/nfs/file.c index cc93865..22572af 100644 --- a/fs/nfs/file.c +++ b/fs/nfs/file.c @@ -428,8 +428,8 @@ static int do_vfs_lock(struct file *file BUG(); } if (res < 0) - printk(KERN_WARNING "%s: VFS is out of sync with lock manager!\n", - __FUNCTION__); + dprintk("%s: VFS is out of sync with lock manager (res = %d)!\n", + __FUNCTION__, res); return res; } @@ -479,10 +479,13 @@ static int do_setlk(struct file *filp, i * we clean up any state on the server. We therefore * record the lock call as having succeeded in order to * ensure that locks_remove_posix() cleans it out when - * the process exits. + * the process exits. Make sure not to sleep if + * someone else holds the lock. */ - if (status == -EINTR || status == -ERESTARTSYS) + if (status == -EINTR || status == -ERESTARTSYS) { + fl->fl_flags &= ~FL_SLEEP; do_vfs_lock(filp, fl); + } } else status = do_vfs_lock(filp, fl); unlock_kernel();
-- Jesper Juhl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html Plain text mails only, please http://www.expita.com/nomime.html - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/