From: Wendy Cheng <wcheng@redhat.com>
To: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
Cc: nfs@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Question about f_count in struct nlm_file
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 22:58:37 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4603506D.5040807@redhat.com> (raw)
I'm trying to finish the NLM lock failover work. The new NLM code in
2.6.21-rc4 kernel is kind of confusing. To make the story short, could
someone please explain how the server side's f_count (in struct
nlm_file) is intended to be used ? My test program simply does a posix
lock from NFS client without unlocking it (testing lock failover). Look
like the server keeps the file in nlm_files hash but the f_count for
that particular file is zero. The trace shows the following:
client does posix lock -->
server calls nlm4svc_proc_lock() ->
* server lookup file (f_count++)
* server lock the file
* server calls nlm_release_host
* server calls nlm_release_file (f_count--)
* server return to client with status 0
This will cause any call into nlm_traverse_files() to crash in the
following path, if the file happens to be of "no interest" of the search
(for example, the "match" function returns FALSE in all cases). Is this
intentional or oversight ? Would 2.6.21-rc4 be a good base to do NLM
development work ?
260 /*
261 * Loop over all files in the file table.
262 */
263 static int
264 nlm_traverse_files(struct nlm_host *host, nlm_host_match_fn_t match)
265 {
.............
271 for (i = 0; i < FILE_NRHASH; i++) {
272 hlist_for_each_entry_safe(file, pos, next,
&nlm_files[i] , f_list) {
....
274 file->f_count++;
275 mutex_unlock(&nlm_file_mutex);
276
277 /* Traverse locks, blocks and shares of
this fil e
278 * and update file->f_locks count */
279 if (nlm_inspect_file(host, file, match))
280 ret = 1;
281
282 mutex_lock(&nlm_file_mutex);
283 file->f_count--;
284 /* No more references to this file. Let
go of it . */
285 if (list_empty(&file->f_blocks) &&
!file->f_lock s
286 && !file->f_shares && !file->f_count) {
287 hlist_del(&file->f_list);
288 nlmsvc_ops->fclose(file->f_file);
289 kfree(file);
I can make the nlm_inspect_file() loops back (instead of trying to clean
up the hash) to avoid this crash. But somehow the f_count logic sounds
wrong to me. Why would a file that is still locked has a f_count zero in
the hash ?
-- Wendy
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist - NFS@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs
next reply other threads:[~2007-03-23 2:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-03-23 3:58 Wendy Cheng [this message]
2007-03-23 4:29 ` Question about f_count in struct nlm_file Wendy Cheng
2007-03-23 4:38 ` Neil Brown
2007-03-23 22:11 ` Wendy Cheng
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4603506D.5040807@redhat.com \
--to=wcheng@redhat.com \
--cc=neilb@suse.de \
--cc=nfs@lists.sourceforge.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.