Re: NFS regression in 2.6.37.1 (current stable)

[Dr Andrew John Hughes <ahughes@redhat.com>]

On 19:59 Thu 10 Mar     , Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
> Hello Andrew,
> 
> On 03/10/2011 07:53 PM, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
> > [Please CC me on responses as I'm not subscribed]
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I seem to have uncovered a regression in the NFS code between 2.6.37 and 2.6.37.1
> > caused by this changeset:
> > 
> > commit 55ea499d60aefa3d03a77fc8590c26b5881faa92
> > Author: Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com>
> > Date:   Sat Jan 8 17:45:38 2011 -0500
> > NFS: Don't use vm_map_ram() in readdir
> > http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-2.6.37.y.git;a=commit;h=6650239a4b01077e80d5a4468562756d77afaa59
> > 
> > With this change applied, copying of files between NFS and non-NFS
> > mounts seems to be broken.  The easiest way I've found to replicate
> > this myself is to use a VCS to do a clone of a tree on a NFS mount to
> > a directory on a non-NFS mount.  I used Mercurial, as I had Mercurial
> > trees to hand from work on IcedTea, but I assume doing it with a git
> > tree such as the linux tree would also work.  The idea is to do
> > something which involves copying over a bunch of directories and
> > checking the result is readable.
> > 
> > $ hg clone $HOME/projects/openjdk/icedtea6-hg
> > destination directory: icedtea6-hg
> > updating to branch default
> > abort:
> > data/contrib/templater/hotspot/src/cpu/CPU/vm/bytecodeInterpreter_CPU.inline.hpp.i@16d04ce16287:
> > no match found!
> > 
> > In the above, $HOME is an NFS mount and $PWD is a local reiserfs
> > partition.  I initially hit failures doing builds with source on $HOME
> > and the build directory on a local reiserfs partition.  In that
> > scenario, it would fail as not being able to find files that should
> > have been copied over.
> > 
> > Reverting the changeset fixes the issue.  2.6.37.2 still has the bug.
> > I haven't checked 2.6.37.3 yet but I didn't see any NFS changes in there.
> 
> Which arch are you using? As this patch is also part of the upcoming
> 2.6.38, can you check if the latest .38 is affected, too?
> 

Sorry, I should have said; it's x86_64.  I'll give .38 a go.  It sounds,
from the other responses, like that has the required fix and it just needs
to be backported to the 2.6.37 tree.

> cheers, Marc
> 
> -- 
> Pengutronix e.K.                  | Marc Kleine-Budde           |
> Industrial Linux Solutions        | Phone: +49-231-2826-924     |
> Vertretung West/Dortmund          | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |
> Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686  | http://www.pengutronix.de   |
> 

Cheers,
-- 
Andrew :)

Free Java Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com)