[lkml]   [2016]   [Jul]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Hang due to nfs letting tasks freeze with locked inodes
On Fri 08-07-16 08:51:54, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-07-08 at 14:22 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > Apart from alternative Dave was mentioning in other email, what is the
> > point to use freezable wait from this path in the first place?
> >
> > nfs4_handle_exception does nfs4_wait_clnt_recover from the same path and
> > that does wait_on_bit_action with TASK_KILLABLE so we are waiting in two
> > different modes from the same path AFAICS. There do not seem to be other
> > callers of nfs4_delay outside of nfs4_handle_exception. Sounds like
> > something is not quite right here to me. If the nfs4_delay did regular
> > wait then the freezing would fail as well but at least it would be clear
> > who is the culrprit rather than having an indirect dependency.
> The codepaths involved there are a lot more complex than that
> unfortunately.
> nfs4_delay is the function that we use to handle the case where the
> server returns NFS4ERR_DELAY. Basically telling us that it's too busy
> right now or has some transient error and the client should retry after
> a small, sliding delay.
> That codepath could probably be made more freezer-safe. The typical
> case however, is that we've sent a call and just haven't gotten a
> reply. That's the trickier one to handle.

Why using a regular non-freezable wait would be a problem?
Michal Hocko

 \ /
  Last update: 2016-07-08 16:41    [W:0.057 / U:3.232 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site