[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#670505: [3.2.12 -> 3.2.14 regression] BUG: unable to handle kernel paging request in nfs_mark_delegation_referenced



Rik Theys wrote:

> If I read [1] correctly this patch was pushed in a Fedora update,
> and results in the following message being spewed at syslog by the
> thousands (filling the disk):
>
> NFS: nfs4_reclaim_open_state: Lock reclaim failed!

Mm, sounds unpleasant.  Here's a workaround, though it doesn't
leave me thrilled.

-- >8 --
From: William Dauchy <wdauchy@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 12:32:04 +0100
Subject: NFSv4: Rate limit the state manager for lock reclaim warning messages

commit 96dcadc2fdd111dca90d559f189a30c65394451a upstream.

Adding rate limit on `Lock reclaim failed` messages since it could fill
up system logs

Signed-off-by: William Dauchy <wdauchy@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
---
 fs/nfs/nfs4state.c |    3 ++-
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/fs/nfs/nfs4state.c b/fs/nfs/nfs4state.c
index 66020acf2ecd..9464a349f833 100644
--- a/fs/nfs/nfs4state.c
+++ b/fs/nfs/nfs4state.c
@@ -1186,7 +1186,8 @@ restart:
 				spin_lock(&state->state_lock);
 				list_for_each_entry(lock, &state->lock_states, ls_locks) {
 					if (!(lock->ls_flags & NFS_LOCK_INITIALIZED))
-						printk("%s: Lock reclaim failed!\n",
+						pr_warn_ratelimited(
+							"%s: Lock reclaim failed!\n",
 							__func__);
 				}
 				spin_unlock(&state->state_lock);
-- 
1.7.10




Reply to: