Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] fat: allocate persistent inode numbers

[OGAWA Hirofumi]

Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

>>> I think that it is unfixable because we can not know i_pos of inode
>>> changed by rename.
>>> And even though we know it, there is no rebuild inode routine in -mm.
>>> And It even can not fix in our patches.
>>
>>>> And are you tried https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/6/29/381 patches? It sounds
>>>> like to improve performance by enabling lookupcache.
>>> We checked this patches when facing estale issue in -mm.
>>> But It is no use, these patches just retry system call one more when
>>> estale error.
>>
>> What happens if client retried from lookup() after -ESTALE? (client NFS
>> doesn't have the name of entry anymore?)
> Need to rebuild inode routine because inode cache is already evicted on Server.
>>
>> I'm assuming the retry means - it restarts from building the NFS file
>> handle. I might be just wrong here though.
> As I remember, just retry in VFS of NFS client..I heard this patch is
> needed for
> a very specific set of circumstances where an entry goes stale once
> between the lookup and the actual operation(s).
> It is not related with current issues(inode cache eviction on server).

Supposing, the server/client state is after cold boot, and client try to
rename at first without any cache on client/server.

Even if this state, does the server return ESTALE? If it doesn't return
ESTALE, I can't understand why it is really unfixable.

If it returns ESTALE, why does it return? I'm assuming the previous code
path is the cached FH path.
-- 
OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/