* V4 unmount causes a GETATTR
@ 2013-02-15 15:46 Steve Dickson
2013-02-15 18:25 ` J. Bruce Fields
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Steve Dickson @ 2013-02-15 15:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-nfs
Hello,
I have not tracked down as to the exact reason,
but it appears umount of v4 file system cause the
directory to be revalidating causing the GETATTR.
Is this revalidation really necessary on an unmount?
tia,
steved.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: V4 unmount causes a GETATTR
2013-02-15 15:46 V4 unmount causes a GETATTR Steve Dickson
@ 2013-02-15 18:25 ` J. Bruce Fields
2013-02-15 21:45 ` Steve Dickson
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: J. Bruce Fields @ 2013-02-15 18:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Steve Dickson; +Cc: linux-nfs
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 10:46:00AM -0500, Steve Dickson wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have not tracked down as to the exact reason,
> but it appears umount of v4 file system cause the
> directory to be revalidating causing the GETATTR.
>
> Is this revalidation really necessary on an unmount?
I don't know, maybe not. But even if it's not, there are other things
(like cleaning up state) that the client will likely try to do on
unmount. In the presence of delegations it could have dirty data that
it's required to write back even if applications don't currently hold
any open files.
So I don't think we can promise umount will work without the network.
--b.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: V4 unmount causes a GETATTR
2013-02-15 18:25 ` J. Bruce Fields
@ 2013-02-15 21:45 ` Steve Dickson
2013-02-16 5:17 ` Myklebust, Trond
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Steve Dickson @ 2013-02-15 21:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: J. Bruce Fields; +Cc: linux-nfs
On 15/02/13 13:25, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 10:46:00AM -0500, Steve Dickson wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I have not tracked down as to the exact reason,
>> but it appears umount of v4 file system cause the
>> directory to be revalidating causing the GETATTR.
>>
>> Is this revalidation really necessary on an unmount?
>
> I don't know, maybe not. But even if it's not, there are other things
> (like cleaning up state) that the client will likely try to do on
> unmount. In the presence of delegations it could have dirty data that
> it's required to write back even if applications don't currently hold
> any open files.
Understood with dirty data... but what I as seeing was a v4 mount and
then a reboot with no activity on the mount point...
>
> So I don't think we can promise umount will work without the network.
Again with open files (aka activity on the mount point) I agree but
with no activity or open files, I'm think that GETATTR is simply not
necessary...
steved.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* RE: V4 unmount causes a GETATTR
2013-02-15 21:45 ` Steve Dickson
@ 2013-02-16 5:17 ` Myklebust, Trond
2013-02-16 15:11 ` Steve Dickson
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Myklebust, Trond @ 2013-02-16 5:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Steve Dickson, J. Bruce Fields; +Cc: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org
> -----Original Message-----
> From: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-nfs-
> owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Steve Dickson
> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 4:46 PM
> To: J. Bruce Fields
> Cc: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: V4 unmount causes a GETATTR
>
>
>
> On 15/02/13 13:25, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 10:46:00AM -0500, Steve Dickson wrote:
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> I have not tracked down as to the exact reason, but it appears umount
> >> of v4 file system cause the directory to be revalidating causing the
> >> GETATTR.
> >>
> >> Is this revalidation really necessary on an unmount?
> >
> > I don't know, maybe not. But even if it's not, there are other things
> > (like cleaning up state) that the client will likely try to do on
> > unmount. In the presence of delegations it could have dirty data that
> > it's required to write back even if applications don't currently hold
> > any open files.
> Understood with dirty data... but what I as seeing was a v4 mount and then a
> reboot with no activity on the mount point...
>
> >
> > So I don't think we can promise umount will work without the network.
> Again with open files (aka activity on the mount point) I agree but with no
> activity or open files, I'm think that GETATTR is simply not necessary...
You'd need to add a lookup intent specifically for umount. Otherwise the filesystem will not be able distinguish between path lookups for umount and other activity.
Also note that "no activity or open files" is no guarantee that you won't be holding delegations or pNFS layouts to return; you may still see hangs.
Cheers,
Trond
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: V4 unmount causes a GETATTR
2013-02-16 5:17 ` Myklebust, Trond
@ 2013-02-16 15:11 ` Steve Dickson
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Steve Dickson @ 2013-02-16 15:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Myklebust, Trond; +Cc: J. Bruce Fields, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org
On 16/02/13 00:17, Myklebust, Trond wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-nfs-
>> owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Steve Dickson
>> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 4:46 PM
>> To: J. Bruce Fields
>> Cc: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org
>> Subject: Re: V4 unmount causes a GETATTR
>>
>>
>>
>> On 15/02/13 13:25, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
>>> On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 10:46:00AM -0500, Steve Dickson wrote:
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> I have not tracked down as to the exact reason, but it appears umount
>>>> of v4 file system cause the directory to be revalidating causing the
>>>> GETATTR.
>>>>
>>>> Is this revalidation really necessary on an unmount?
>>>
>>> I don't know, maybe not. But even if it's not, there are other things
>>> (like cleaning up state) that the client will likely try to do on
>>> unmount. In the presence of delegations it could have dirty data that
>>> it's required to write back even if applications don't currently hold
>>> any open files.
>> Understood with dirty data... but what I as seeing was a v4 mount and then a
>> reboot with no activity on the mount point...
>>
>>>
>>> So I don't think we can promise umount will work without the network.
>> Again with open files (aka activity on the mount point) I agree but with no
>> activity or open files, I'm think that GETATTR is simply not necessary...
>
> You'd need to add a lookup intent specifically for umount. Otherwise the filesystem will not be able distinguish between path lookups for umount and other activity.
>
> Also note that "no activity or open files" is no guarantee that you won't be holding delegations or pNFS layouts to return; you may still see hangs.
>
I've also noticed force mounts this clean up does not happen (aka the GETATTR is not sent)... which is the price of doing forced mounts...
steved.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2013-02-16 15:11 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2013-02-15 15:46 V4 unmount causes a GETATTR Steve Dickson
2013-02-15 18:25 ` J. Bruce Fields
2013-02-15 21:45 ` Steve Dickson
2013-02-16 5:17 ` Myklebust, Trond
2013-02-16 15:11 ` Steve Dickson
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.