From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from canpmsgout04.his.huawei.com (canpmsgout04.his.huawei.com [113.46.200.219]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF3953932F9; Thu, 12 Mar 2026 04:19:55 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=113.46.200.219 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1773289199; cv=none; b=Na4Prc73p6ZLowty4aevGh+8AKDa983puDydZ1H8BPysxV6LckGTY0j2FWANsPd1ccrphzbb0qFWef4zw8V+2t8mKnhwfBNMk/xGIWArAEfplkXvBxAt35uj/IQ8CIFifIstqVuZJzMzuJLRa+quFzlfYkdEjEVgUvHDLIqd5IE= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1773289199; c=relaxed/simple; bh=onY0noDIOZY0It9o6m2cbzlm+ygi2PZFHDQzINxi4d4=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:CC:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=slSXAH3O6Es+5ZoYV88oJCWspor0XhNbDbSuMZi1+sTh3NMaK3oq/5gfWEdpgby03Wa+mtfgz2ZOHGHCV3JLllshOP83opmzwwLXsRq1GcOuusL9hpN4+tU2TUyUcFFtdOaLmvugRccSQLGKmnjxhB07k7OFJ+PPL3XofiUnW+U= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=h-partners.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=h-partners.com header.i=@h-partners.com header.b=ALblATZc; arc=none smtp.client-ip=113.46.200.219 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=h-partners.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=h-partners.com header.i=@h-partners.com header.b="ALblATZc" dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=h-partners.com; s=dkim; c=relaxed/relaxed; q=dns/txt; h=From; bh=L5tV3rBARWrY6aK902XrsCccBNL9R4uJiM3GHUwNye4=; b=ALblATZcf1nks3bwTRFtediE/0n33vyZ5b4AcyfMCDlQx3Cc0j85wGj/Qc7fLDibzzW0UVTMP CZnTWLwl19cwVPxOCu11huO/2ka0yQTuu1/Qu8uAaV710zXkOQfwqqq5DxY7SrO4oiQMkc0TeoT thxqXM6RE3w69nEtxqrGVyw= Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.19.163.0]) by canpmsgout04.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTPS id 4fWZ5P75cTz1prLl; Thu, 12 Mar 2026 12:14:49 +0800 (CST) Received: from dggpemr100013.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.185.36.198]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1C8D040561; Thu, 12 Mar 2026 12:19:48 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.174.186.66] (10.174.186.66) by dggpemr100013.china.huawei.com (7.185.36.198) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1544.36; Thu, 12 Mar 2026 12:19:47 +0800 Message-ID: <77b2c3ea-52d0-4f2f-8cca-4481f3426fc5@huawei.com> Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2026 12:19:46 +0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [Question]nfs: should nfs timeout even with NFS_CS_NO_RETRANS_TIMEOUT ? To: Trond Myklebust , , Jeff Layton CC: , References: <850dcbf562b7eb5848278937092d2d8511eb648f.camel@kernel.org> <1e1eadf5-fab9-4919-a71a-864aa7109c7b@huawei.com> <23b52d16-4b74-43e4-9fff-73ac57c9ef89@huawei.com> <80c9ba69f1d35928ea9d21e146e60f194cff7405.camel@kernel.org> From: "zhangjian (CG)" In-Reply-To: <80c9ba69f1d35928ea9d21e146e60f194cff7405.camel@kernel.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ClientProxiedBy: kwepems500002.china.huawei.com (7.221.188.17) To dggpemr100013.china.huawei.com (7.185.36.198) On 3/6/2026 12:49 PM, Trond Myklebust wrote: > On Fri, 2026-03-06 at 10:46 +0800, zhangjian (CG) wrote: >> Hi experts on NFS: >> >> Recently we meet an error: >> 1.Nfs wait for sunrpc >> 2.Sunrpc send OPEN message and hang the rpc task onto sunrpc pending >> queue. >> 3.Server never reply, and since NFS_CS_NO_RETRANS_TIMEOUT is forced >> and >> connection is ESTABLISHED, task will never be retransmitted. >> This cause procedures waiting on this file hang forever. >> I know using "umount -f " to kill rpc task works. And the key to the >> problem most likely lies in the network layer. But should nfs >> retransmit >> it after waiting for so long? >> >> Wish for reply. Thanks >> >> Zhangjian >> > Please read the NFSv4 spec. It very clearly states that the client > should never retransmit unless the connection breaks. > NFSv4 spec said client should never retransmit, but not said client need to wait forever. Maybe sunrpc should tell nfs -ETIMEOUT and nfs return ERROR rather than retransmit. > IOW: the problem here is your broken server, not the client.