From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out203-205-221-155.mail.qq.com (out203-205-221-155.mail.qq.com [203.205.221.155]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D1B428287E; Mon, 27 Apr 2026 04:52:48 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=203.205.221.155 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1777265572; cv=none; b=PGZkwSBGj4dQoTcSRWHKX/yc5JHFj6zKya7vTR93mbh2Yo1GcaGT4qzinoJZriqpvH2zwuuAsvbHeSGU5i+14QDbxBSt22rystk7ODvkodNZAI9p5pcUQO0IK0zEOi59VvXDGu1oDoTWk0FMAjg7wNJgZf8dLw3DTUwNkfli9cA= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1777265572; c=relaxed/simple; bh=2E/gt99rDneHqZlnyr5iOm1KQLLuTNRA8XbBfN1A8wQ=; h=Message-ID:From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version; b=I3UwlDmEMvpxPN64Eo6t8LOJz01NL8foiT2Lwc7L2EfOJuqWaiVSgzMNDubosVKnaZOEeuXNXtLOF7pMNLvOOkJYxLtTd21ZztTDseiPUlJVELADA+VMWVorVKBdpzGl3hEZp1yfWVw8WptvickdbxZXG+6WSG9ndsoCt2dMPlE= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=foxmail.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=foxmail.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=foxmail.com header.i=@foxmail.com header.b=gSEr4ON8; arc=none smtp.client-ip=203.205.221.155 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=foxmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=foxmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=foxmail.com header.i=@foxmail.com header.b="gSEr4ON8" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=foxmail.com; s=s201512; t=1777265561; bh=uhqX77ULMkFhfbXHWiyYYnT7BbfYIN8BHXvhFkkoPSQ=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References; b=gSEr4ON8h5GXos7MGbOqHXeslJJmiLyvJaZQZlVVO1Ho5EF4FO+6LtvQbP677LosG GFVTp3WpxKusEuPWQob03gMcu4FnTgfuxy0wUuYvLe0/N9dWXCm2+Jtv+B8h8PkEU4 sAi/efhaNUXXxOosnb6WpSeg2v8LScuf4d/e/Lx0= Received: from ubuntu2404.. ([103.244.59.3]) by newxmesmtplogicsvrszb43-0.qq.com (NewEsmtp) with SMTP id D2698AD1; Mon, 27 Apr 2026 12:52:38 +0800 X-QQ-mid: xmsmtpt1777265558tpn10y6ba Message-ID: X-QQ-XMAILINFO: NwU6Bou9okj/r5MsqRS+QprO5G7GcgvjQtJtkGcweuwe0jtgN7ShR/kOvSVG0p jMc6hQ/xbRfJSazNkJ5EIv+UUMBXIa3M7RxbXvjX2W1mRVxTGQ/kd1nLTKVs7FsmhwBYOzcc9YQi mbhLEjOH5k5kJn4/lhhCoIirUzWOdiM+ZsjMSwj8otZN9ZMoEungtEnl/VKDZyW0ljiQsnVnh7vi ZA6JXKASNEz+OMTkXhW1i7kq0apvcjzBZ7DoNH5hX8y5VIivo2Z/jC8R3tlrWZvCpMkeSvkiKbvn Dv77kfPWwFEZ2gIHjs09gSFjGC4gL03Jh71FlF4uJPg46saD0CddsQ7M3Dxyc8/PAXEHzodSSF5V 2dZ5N4VT2Xv208exEdF7ni0NfcrgM/CaPOKMix3Xjjextu3nwF+e6fE/RLImNW3s2vF12cUEp20K Pp9zIZj8+GWDp9Wvj/P9cnwmZ5QVJoqVtmxyOdSX3AcHY/veOL37TbU6wT3QvJk6wnElB4qL4x/3 dmG4XIuFDcOMEvjDDxvp4YiQts7gOs9/oW0i4pHWLCrv2DmUkPXJ/rx1Zq5cksgsT5NgNPbB6GOd 0MxjTU+kEUX3d/A8BAvXX1O2pmQy8/9cJAfNZ5We6Pn6NXanxipHLtN3cxZW9iAoJCeOebUh0+J0 yEBjDVdSGEFAKCyZcdur0uvd/HooFZjhJPDoIvN9zHwQrPt9fZFSIdBwUFOoteW92ggH+aYNRQ9B WZYOSiwopucc/LLZEGA1aTTib7dT4C4ztJHtsEhanDD+dsQNocQ5AouqTID/vSNivmbhoDpiwvx1 CMxOHLGieN2qtIJFfpq8fdqehtgplX7f9xU8wMOq7YyPUop+Wc1hHJfj1NGZkPfx+xq0bjWuWMb8 fj7iqibf3yjEqgDhmeBqX0Xb5/PMMAl3Q9j/+5J2NYjmcn+VvTriuuPq1I1j6CSRup+nywdzkZlc 3pXRHbjtRTzPxem0Om8vRXKWpBLEDr7g6iYVogEOSK9VF3DCfN11d9TzRObrnkaRUoH0yDFcI6Iu ArmJE+8+8hRCln9Jvc X-QQ-XMRINFO: Mp0Kj//9VHAxzExpfF+O8yhSrljjwrznVg== From: Lei Yin To: Trond Myklebust , Anna Schumaker Cc: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, yinlei2@lenovo.com Subject: Question about "Not Applicable" status for [PATCH v2] NFSv4.1/pNFS: fix LAYOUTCOMMIT retry loop on OLD_STATEID Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2026 04:52:35 +0000 X-OQ-MSGID: <20260427045235.32524-1-cybeyond@foxmail.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.43.0 In-Reply-To: References: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi, Sorry for the confusion in the previous submissions. Due to an editing mistake, the first two versions of this patch were not sent as one proper series. My patch "[PATCH v2] NFSv4.1/pNFS: fix LAYOUTCOMMIT retry loop on OLD_STATEID" was marked as Not Applicable. I would like to ask for clarification on the reason. This patch is intended to handle the case where LAYOUTCOMMIT gets NFS4ERR_OLD_STATEID in nfs4_layoutcommit_done(). The change refreshes data->args.stateid via nfs4_layout_refresh_old_stateid(), updates the layout stateid in the inode layout header when appropriate, and restarts the RPC only after the refresh succeeds. The purpose is to avoid retrying LAYOUTCOMMIT indefinitely with the same stale stateid after OLD_STATEID. The issue was reproduced on NFSv4.2. The most reliable way I found to reproduce it is: 1. Run a workload with relatively high concurrent I/O on the client. 2. Kill the client-side I/O process with kill -9 while those I/Os are still in flight. 3. In that situation, there is roughly a 50% chance that a subsequent LAYOUTCOMMIT is sent with an old stateid. 4. Since LAYOUTCOMMIT does not handle NFS4ERR_OLD_STATEID in this path, the same stale stateid may continue to be retried. 5. This can lead to an infinite retry loop, and the affected file then appears to become unresponsive. Using kill without -9 makes this problem much harder to reproduce. However, even without kill -9, the same issue can still occasionally be observed under sufficient concurrency and stress testing. So my understanding of the bug is: - kill -9 makes the stale stateid window much easier to hit; - ordinary concurrency/stress testing can still trigger it occasionally; - because LAYOUTCOMMIT does not recover from OLD_STATEID here, the RPC can loop indefinitely with the stale stateid; - once this happens, operations on the corresponding file may stop making progress. Could you please let me know whether the Not Applicable status means: 1. an equivalent fix is already present in the target tree, 2. the patch was sent against the wrong tree or branch, or 3. there is some issue with the problem analysis or the proposed fix? If needed, I can resend the patch against the appropriate branch or adjust the description accordingly. Thanks, Lei Yin