Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 18:08:41 -0400 (EDT) From: Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca> To: araujobsdport@gmail.com Cc: freebsd-fs <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: fixing "umount -f" for the NFS client Message-ID: <883922185.41691052.1381874921157.JavaMail.root@uoguelph.ca> In-Reply-To: <8374DB4D-C659-4400-AFC9-8E56B692C71E@gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Marcelo Araujo wrote: > > > On 2013/10/15, at 21:05, Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca> wrote: > > > araujo wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> 2013/9/5 Benjamin Kaduk < kaduk@mit.edu > > >> > >> > >> > >> On Wed, 4 Sep 2013, Rick Macklem wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> I think there are spare vfsops fields, so the MFC can be done in > >> an > >> ABI-compatible way. The new routine is for optional functionality, > >> so it > >> seems fine. > >> > >> There are spares vfs ops in 10/current, but not in stable/9. An > >> MFC > >> will > >> result in a VFS ABI change. (Since 10.0 hasn't been released yet, > >> I > >> didn't > >> use one of the recently added spares.) > >> > >> Oh, right, I was looking at 10/current. > >> > >> Unless there are pressing calls for the feature in the stable > >> branches, it's probably best to hold off on the MFC, then. OpenAFS > >> has encountered a few KBI incompatibilities over the years (mostly > >> in the networking bits, if I remember correctly), and we can deal > >> in > >> the future, but not having to is nice. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Hello Guys, > >> > >> > >> Is it possible to have it on 9-STABLE? > >> I tried to port the changes of revision 255136 made by rmacklem@ > >> to a > >> 9.1-RELEASE but the bug is still there. > >> > >> > >> Any change to make it works on 9.1, 9.2 or 9-STABLE? > >> > >> The patch attached is based on 9.1-RELEASE. > > The patch looks ok at a glance. Note that it can take > > up to 2-3minutes for a forced dismount to complete, > > depending on where the threads are waiting. > > > > If the mount is still there 5minutes after doing > > "umount -f", do a "ps axhl" and post the output > > of that to me. It may be getting stuck somewhere > > else than where I've seen during testing. > > Hello Rick, > > Thanks by the prompt reply, I'm gonna make more tests tomorrow, and > give you the output if necessary! > > However, is there any way to improve this time to force the umount? > To be honest, I have enough trouble making it work at all. I think the long delays happen when the kernel RPC is stuck somewhere in the TCP code waiting for timers to go off. (The "umount -f" forces a soclose() and then the RPCs stuck in sosend() and friends will eventually fail.) rick > > > > > > rick > > > >> > >> Best Regards, -- > >> Marcelo Araujo > >> araujo@FreeBSD.org >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?883922185.41691052.1381874921157.JavaMail.root>