mirror of
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git
synced 2026-05-11 00:42:56 -04:00
NFSD: Skip sending CB_RECALL_ANY when the backchannel isn't up
NFSD sends CB_RECALL_ANY to clients when the server is low on
memory or that client has a large number of delegations outstanding.
We've seen cases where NFSD attempts to send CB_RECALL_ANY requests
to disconnected clients, and gets confused. These calls never go
anywhere if a backchannel transport to the target client isn't
available. Before the server can send any backchannel operation, the
client has to connect first and then do a BIND_CONN_TO_SESSION.
This patch doesn't address the root cause of the confusion, but
there's no need to queue up these optional operations if they can't
go anywhere.
Fixes: 44df6f439a ("NFSD: add delegation reaper to react to low memory condition")
Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>
This commit is contained in:
@@ -6861,14 +6861,19 @@ deleg_reaper(struct nfsd_net *nn)
|
||||
spin_lock(&nn->client_lock);
|
||||
list_for_each_safe(pos, next, &nn->client_lru) {
|
||||
clp = list_entry(pos, struct nfs4_client, cl_lru);
|
||||
if (clp->cl_state != NFSD4_ACTIVE ||
|
||||
list_empty(&clp->cl_delegations) ||
|
||||
atomic_read(&clp->cl_delegs_in_recall) ||
|
||||
test_bit(NFSD4_CLIENT_CB_RECALL_ANY, &clp->cl_flags) ||
|
||||
(ktime_get_boottime_seconds() -
|
||||
clp->cl_ra_time < 5)) {
|
||||
|
||||
if (clp->cl_state != NFSD4_ACTIVE)
|
||||
continue;
|
||||
if (list_empty(&clp->cl_delegations))
|
||||
continue;
|
||||
if (atomic_read(&clp->cl_delegs_in_recall))
|
||||
continue;
|
||||
if (test_bit(NFSD4_CLIENT_CB_RECALL_ANY, &clp->cl_flags))
|
||||
continue;
|
||||
if (ktime_get_boottime_seconds() - clp->cl_ra_time < 5)
|
||||
continue;
|
||||
if (clp->cl_cb_state != NFSD4_CB_UP)
|
||||
continue;
|
||||
}
|
||||
list_add(&clp->cl_ra_cblist, &cblist);
|
||||
|
||||
/* release in nfsd4_cb_recall_any_release */
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user