From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Benny Halevy Subject: Re: pNFS timeouts Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 11:10:53 -0400 Message-ID: <4C16467D.2030000@panasas.com> References: <20100614085157.GS17703@ics.muni.cz> <4C163892.20201@panasas.com> <20100614142332.GB17703@ics.muni.cz> <4C1640DF.5070506@panasas.com> <20100614150542.GD17703@ics.muni.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-2 Cc: "J. Bruce Fields" , linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org To: Lukas Hejtmanek Return-path: Received: from daytona.panasas.com ([67.152.220.89]:24481 "EHLO daytona.int.panasas.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752038Ab0FNPKx (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Jun 2010 11:10:53 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20100614150542.GD17703@ics.muni.cz> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Jun. 14, 2010, 11:05 -0400, Lukas Hejtmanek wrote: > On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 10:46:55AM -0400, Benny Halevy wrote: >>> Jun 14 16:17:00 undomiel1 kernel: [187434.936507] nfs41_sequence_call_done rpc_cred ffff88003d7a0300 >>> Jun 14 16:17:00 undomiel1 kernel: [187434.936514] <-- nfs41_sequence_call_done >>> Jun 14 16:17:00 undomiel1 kernel: [187434.936522] nfs4_schedule_state_renewal: requeueing work. Lease period = 60 >>> Jun 14 16:17:00 undomiel1 kernel: [187434.936530] --> nfs_put_client({2}) >>> Jun 14 16:17:16 undomiel1 kernel: [187450.536014] nfs4_renew_state: start >>> Jun 14 16:17:16 undomiel1 kernel: [187450.536045] nfs4_renew_state: failed to call renewd. Reason: lease not expired >>> Jun 14 16:17:16 undomiel1 kernel: [187450.536056] nfs4_schedule_state_renewal: requeueing work. Lease period = 38 >> >> This looks like a complaint but it's actually saying that the "failure" >> is due to the fact that everything is OK (lease not expired) > > the state renewal actually starts after 16 seconds after schedule start > renewal for some reason. The nfs_put_client actually starts the renewal? > No, the state renewal is done independently in the background. >> BTW, is this the same issue that Jiri reported? >> http://marc.info/?l=linux-nfs&m=127619696004097&w=2 > > Yes, but I didn't see any response to that, so I guess his report is not clear > enough. >