From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.candelatech.com ([208.74.158.172]:60958 "EHLO ns3.lanforge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751143Ab0IHAMS (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Sep 2010 20:12:18 -0400 Received: from [192.168.100.195] (firewall.candelatech.com [70.89.124.249]) (authenticated bits=0) by ns3.lanforge.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id o880CHBX012629 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 7 Sep 2010 17:12:17 -0700 Message-ID: <4C86D4E1.4000403@candelatech.com> Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2010 17:12:17 -0700 From: Ben Greear To: "linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org" Subject: is 'umount' asynchronous? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 While testing NFSv4 over TCPv6 on 2.6.36-rc3 + my srcaddr= patch today, I noticed that I was getting 'busy' errors from umount if I closed a file in a program and then had it immediately system("umount ..."); If I retry the umount a few times, it will start returning 'already unmounted'. It took around 50-100ms (I was sleeping 50ms between umount attempts). Is that expected behaviour? Seems we never needed any retries and never got 'busy' on 2.6.34 and earlier. Thanks, Ben -- Ben Greear Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com