Re: [Question]nfs: never returned delegation

["zhangjian (CG)" <zhangjian496@huawei.com>]

On 2025/8/11 21:03, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> On Mon, 2025-08-11 at 20:48 +0800, zhangjian (CG) wrote:
>> Recently, we meet a NFS problem in 5.10. There are so many
>> test_state_id request after a non-privilaged request in tcpdump
>> result. There are 40w+ delegations in client (I read the delegation
>> list from /proc/kcore).
>> Firstly, I think state manager cost a lot in
>> nfs_server_reap_expired_delegations. But I see they are all in
>> NFS_DELEGATION_REVOKED state except 6 in NFS_DELEGATION_REFERENCED (I
>> read this from /proc/kcore too). 
>> I analyze NFS code and find if NFSPROC4_CLNT_DELEGRETURN procedure
>> meet ETIMEOUT, delegation will be marked as NFS4ERR_DELEG_REVOKED and
>> never return it again. NFS server will keep the revoked delegation in
>> clp->cl_revoked forever. This will result in following sequence
>> response with RECALLABLE_STATE_REVOKED flag. Client will send
>> test_state_id request for all non-revoked delegation.
>> This can only be solved by restarting NFS server.
>> I think ETIMEOUT in NFSPROC4_CLNT_DELEGRETURN procedure may be not
>> the only case that cause lots of non-terminable test_state_id
>> requests after any non-privilaged request. 
>> Wish NFS experts give some advices on this problem.
>>
> 
> You have the following options:
> 
>    1. Don't ever use "soft" or "softerr" on the NFS client.
>    2. Reboot your server every now and again.
>    3. Change the server code to not bother caching revoked state. Doing
>       so is rather pointless, since there is nothing a client can do
>       differently when presented with NFS4ERR_DELEG_REVOKED vs.
>       NFS4ERR_BAD_STATEID.
>    4. Change the server code to garbage collect revoked stateids after
>       a while.
> 
>

Thanks a lot for reply.

NFS client meet TIMEOUT in return-delegation procedure may not be the
only case that server keep delegation in clp->cl_revoked list forever.
I think garbaging collecting revoked stateid after a while (4) is more
reasonable way to avoid this problem。