From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=3.0 tests=MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8969BC43444 for ; Thu, 20 Dec 2018 18:05:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6840E217D9 for ; Thu, 20 Dec 2018 18:05:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1731288AbeLTSFh (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Dec 2018 13:05:37 -0500 Received: from fieldses.org ([173.255.197.46]:48740 "EHLO fieldses.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2388514AbeLTSFh (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Dec 2018 13:05:37 -0500 Received: by fieldses.org (Postfix, from userid 2815) id 9596F1C96; Thu, 20 Dec 2018 13:05:36 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 13:05:36 -0500 From: "J. Bruce Fields" To: Jeff Layton Cc: Scott Mayhew , linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] nfsd: keep a tally of RECLAIM_COMPLETE operations when using nfsdcld Message-ID: <20181220180536.GE6063@fieldses.org> References: <20181218142926.27933-1-smayhew@redhat.com> <20181218142926.27933-4-smayhew@redhat.com> <20181219183600.GC28626@fieldses.org> <20181219220545.GS27213@coeurl.usersys.redhat.com> <20181219222147.GA31570@fieldses.org> <901adec26f1fd20259bd3e50d963f304b903d312.camel@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <901adec26f1fd20259bd3e50d963f304b903d312.camel@kernel.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 12:29:43PM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote: > That wasn't my thinking here. > > Suppose we have a client that holds some locks. Server reboots and we do > EXCHANGE_ID and start reclaiming, and eventually send a > RECLAIM_COMPLETE. > > Now, there is a network partition and we lose contact with the server > for more than a lease period. The client record gets tossed out. Client > eventually reestablishes the connection before the grace period ends and > attempts to reclaim. > > That reclaim should succeed, IMO, as there is no reason that it > shouldn't. Nothing can have claimed competing state since we're still in > the grace period. That scenario requires a grace period longer than the lease period, which isn't impossible but sounds rare? I guess you're thinking in the cluster case about the possibility of a second node failure extending the grace period. Still, that's different from the case where the client explicitly destroys its own state. That could happen in less than a lease period and in that case there won't be a reclaim. I think that case could happen if a client rebooted quickly or maybe just unmounted. Hm. --b.