On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 12:19:18AM -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 06:54:30PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 03:03:18PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> >
> > > Well it's been running an hour without incident, which looks promising.
> > > I'll leave it run, but I'd say you're on the right track given how quick
> > > it reproduced so far.
> >
> > Could you try this and see if it works? What happens is that unlike
> > e.g. generic_file_read_iter/generic_file_write_iter, NFS O_DIRECT handling
> > does not make sure that iov_iter had been advanced by the amount
> > actually transferred - it is left advanced by the amount *requested*.
>
> Sorry for delay on this, been sick. Just gave this a run for 12 hours.
> Looks good to me.
Actually.. client seems fine, but I've noticed these on the server now..
[977286.117268] RPC request reserved 116 but used 268
[1918138.126285] RPC request reserved 200 but used 268
[2327777.483077] RPC request reserved 200 but used 268
[2327800.909007] RPC request reserved 200 but used 268
related ?
Dave
