Re: uncollected nfsd open owners

[NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 910 bytes --]

On Fri, Oct 25 2019, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
>
>>  Also, should we put a cond_resched() in some or all of those loops in
>>  __destroy_client() ??
>
> Looks like it helped find a bug in this case....
>
> Destroying a client that has a ton of active state should be an unusual
> situation.
>
> I don't know, maybe?  I'm sure this isn't the only spinlock-protected
> kernel code where we don't have a strict bound on a loop, what's been
> the practice elsewhere?  Worst case, the realtime code allows preempting
> spinlocks, right?

 git grep cond_resched_lock

But most of __destroy_client isn't protected by a spinlock....

I dunno - maybe it doesn't matter.


> Might be nice to have some sort of limits on the number of objects (like
> stateowners) that can be created.  But it's a pain when we get one of
> those limits wrong. (See
> git log -L :nfsd4_get_drc_mem:fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c.)

Grin...
>

NeilBrown

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 832 bytes --]