Re: NFS regression? Odd delays and lockups accessing an NFS export.

["J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>]

On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 12:33:09PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-09-23 at 08:59 +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > I've found that the problem was backported into the stable stream since
> > I cannot reproduce the issue with 2.6.26 but I can with 2.6.26.5. This
> > is quite useful since there are only 3 relevant looking changesets in
> > that range. I will bisect between these before confirming the culprit on
> > mainline.

Could you double-check that this is reproduceable with this commit
applied, and not reproduceable when it's not?

I suppose it's not impossible that this could be triggering the problem
in some very roundabout way, but it seems a bit out of left field--so I
wonder whether one of the bisection points could have gotten marked good
when it should have been bad, or vice-versa.

> It reports:
> 
>         daedfbe2a67628a40076a6c75fb945c60f608a2e is first bad commit
>         commit daedfbe2a67628a40076a6c75fb945c60f608a2e
>         Author: Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com>
>         Date:   Wed Jun 11 17:39:04 2008 -0400
>         
>             NFS: Ensure we zap only the access and acl caches when setting new acls
>             
>             commit f41f741838480aeaa3a189cff6e210503cf9c42d upstream
>             
>             ...and ensure that we obey the NFS_INO_INVALID_ACL flag when retrieving the
>             acls.
>             
>             Signed-off-by: Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com>
>             Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@suse.de>
> 
> I'm just about to build f41f741838480aeaa3a189cff6e210503cf9c42d and the
> one before and try those.
> 
> I'm not using ACLs as far as I am aware.

I think commands like "ls" try to get posix acls these days, so it's
possible that the nfs3_proc_getacl code at least might be getting
called.  Why that would matter I can't see.

--b.