From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: from mail-wi0-f179.google.com ([209.85.212.179]:58124 "EHLO mail-wi0-f179.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755138AbaDGWJI (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Apr 2014 18:09:08 -0400 Received: by mail-wi0-f179.google.com with SMTP id z2so331528wiv.0 for ; Mon, 07 Apr 2014 15:09:07 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <1396908542.5563.12.camel@leira.trondhjem.org> Subject: Re: NFS deadlock between 'sync' and commit after unmount.... From: Trond Myklebust To: Jan Kara Cc: Brown Neil , Viro Alexander , NFS Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2014 18:09:02 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20140407202750.GE23670@quack.suse.cz> References: <20140407135001.56ef9f36@notabene.brown> <20140407202750.GE23670@quack.suse.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, 2014-04-07 at 22:27 +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > Hello, > > On Mon 07-04-14 10:10:27, Trond Myklebust wrote: > > The problem seems to be the use of iterate_supers(), which grabs a > > passive reference, and conflicts with our use of an active reference in > > the open context. > Yeah, we cannot really do otherwise in iterate_supers() - we have to grab > some superblock reference and we don't really want to get an active one > since that would result in spurious EBUSY returns from umount. BTW: By what mechanism does an active reference lead to EBUSY issues here? -- Trond Myklebust Linux NFS client maintainer, PrimaryData trond.myklebust@primarydata.com