From: bfields@fieldses.org (J. Bruce Fields)
To: Christian Robottom Reis <kiko@acm.org>
Cc: Jeff Layton <jlayton@poochiereds.net>,
NFS List <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Finding and breaking client locks
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 20:30:24 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160322003024.GB2353@fieldses.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160322000911.GA27183@chorus>
On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 09:09:11PM -0300, Christian Robottom Reis wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 05:27:35PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > And you're also correct that there is currently no facility for
> > administratively revoking locks. That's something that would be a nice
> > to have, if someone wanted to propose a sane interface and mechanism
> > for it. Solaris had such a thing, IIRC, but I don't know how it was
> > implemented.
>
> I might look into that -- I think the right thing to do is (as you had
> originally alluded to) dropping all locks pertaining to a specific
> client, as the only failure scenario that can't be worked around that
> I'm thinking about is the client disappearing.
>
> I would also like to understand whether the data structure behind
> /proc/locks could be extended to provide additional metadata which
> the nfs kernel client could annotate to indicate client information.
> That would allow one to figure out who the actual culprit machine was.
>
> > There is one other option too -- you can send a SIGKILL to the lockd
> > kernel thread and it will drop _all_ of its locks. That sort of sucks
> > for all of the other clients, but it can unwedge things without
> > restarting NFS.
>
> That's quite useful to know, thanks -- I knew that messing with the
> initscripts responsible for the nfs kernel services "fixed" the problem,
> but killing lockd is much more convenient.
>
> I wonder, is it normal application behaviour that any locks dropped
> would be detected and reestablished on the client side?
No, you generally don't want that--you don't want an application to
believe it's held a lock continuously when it reality it's been dropped
(and conflicting locks possibly granted and dropped) and then acquired
again.
Client behavior varies. I believe recent linux clients should return
-EIO on subsequent attempts to use associated file descriptors after a
lock is lost. Other OS's apparently signal the process.
--b.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-03-22 0:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-03-21 14:39 Finding and breaking client locks Christian Robottom Reis
2016-03-21 17:19 ` Jeff Layton
2016-03-21 17:55 ` Christian Robottom Reis
2016-03-21 20:56 ` Christian Robottom Reis
2016-03-21 21:27 ` Jeff Layton
2016-03-22 0:09 ` Christian Robottom Reis
2016-03-22 0:30 ` J. Bruce Fields [this message]
2016-03-31 5:11 ` NeilBrown
2016-03-31 20:52 ` Frank Filz
2016-03-22 0:58 ` Christian Robottom Reis
2016-03-31 5:07 ` NeilBrown
2016-03-31 13:34 ` Trond Myklebust
2016-03-31 22:40 ` NeilBrown
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=20160322003024.GB2353@fieldses.org \
--to=bfields@fieldses.org \
--cc=jlayton@poochiereds.net \
--cc=kiko@acm.org \
--cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox