piaojun
2019-Feb-15 06:50 UTC
[Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH] ocfs2/dlm: return DLM_CANCELGRANT if the lock is on granted list and the operation is canceled
Hi Changwei, On 2019/2/14 18:13, Changwei Ge wrote:> On 2019/2/14 17:09, piaojun wrote: >> Hi Changwei, >> >> The problem can't be solved completely if clear ::cancel_pending in >> dlm_proxy_ast_handler, as AST will come at anytime just before > > So how about also add check here bere setting ::cancel_pending in dlmunlock_common() before invoking dlm_send_remote_unlock_request(). > If already on grant list just return DLM_CANCELGRANT > > Then a further reference code might look like: > > root at ubuntu16:/home/chge/linux[master]# git diff > diff --git a/fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmast.c b/fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmast.c > index 39831fc..812843b 100644 > --- a/fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmast.c > +++ b/fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmast.c > @@ -372,8 +372,11 @@ int dlm_proxy_ast_handler(struct o2net_msg *msg, u32 len, void *data, > head = &res->converting; > lock = NULL; > list_for_each_entry(lock, head, list) { > - if (lock->ml.cookie == cookie) > + if (lock->ml.cookie == cookie) { > + if (lock->cancel_pending) > + lock->cancel_pending = 0; > goto do_ast; > + } > } > > /* if not on convert, try blocked for ast, granted for bast */ > diff --git a/fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmunlock.c b/fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmunlock.c > index c8e9b70..b4728b5 100644 > --- a/fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmunlock.c > +++ b/fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmunlock.c > @@ -174,9 +174,14 @@ static enum dlm_status dlmunlock_common(struct dlm_ctxt *dlm, > if (!master_node) { > owner = res->owner; > /* drop locks and send message */ > - if (flags & LKM_CANCEL) > + if (flags & LKM_CANCEL) { > + if (dlm_lock_on_list(&res->granted, lock)) { > + status = DLM_CANCELGRANT; > + goto leave;If master dead and then lockres is moved to granted list in dlm_move_lockres_to_recovery_list, the OCFS2_LOCK_BUSY is not cleared. And this will cause stuck problem when ocfs2_drop_lock. The reason is that unlock ast won't be done when DLM_CANCELGRANT is set. So I think we need distinguish all the cases of moving lockres to grant list.> + } > + > lock->cancel_pending = 1; > - else > + } else > lock->unlock_pending = 1; > spin_unlock(&lock->spinlock); > spin_unlock(&res->spinlock); > > > > Thanks, > Changwei > >> ::cancel_pendig is set. If there is not any other better solutions, >> could we accept this patch? This bug is very harmful. >> >> Thanks, >> Jun >> >> On 2018/12/8 18:05, wangjian wrote: >>> Hi Changwei, >>> >>> I understand your idea. But we should be aware that the cancel_convert process and >>> other processes (accepting the AST process, the recovery process) are asynchronous. >>> For example, according to your idea, check if the lock is in the grant queue before >>> calling the dlm_send_remote_unlock_request function in the dlm_proxy_ast_handler function. >>> Then decide whether to clear cancel_pending. But if the AST does not come at this time, >>> the check passes and cancel_pendig will not be cleared. Then AST immediately came over again, >>> which also led to a bug. I personally think that for asynchronous processes we can't guarantee >>> the speed of execution of each process. All we can do is to avoid the BUG scene. >>> >>> As for the question you said ("If you remove the BUG check why you still call dlm_commit_pending_cancel() >>> to move the lock back to grant on matter it's on converting list or not?"). >>> I think we should first check if the lock is in the grant queue >>> (at this time, dlm->spinlock and res->spinlock have been added), then decide whether to call >>> dlm_commit_pending_cancel function. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Jian >>> >>> On 12/7/2018 11:12 AM, Changwei Ge wrote: >>>> Hi Jian, >>>> >>>> I suppose that the situation you described truly exists. >>>> But the way you fix the issue is not in my favor. >>>> >>>> If you remove the BUG check why you still call dlm_commit_pending_cancel() to >>>> move the lock back to grant on matter it's on converting list or not? >>>> >>>> So how about keeping the BUG check in dlm_move_lockres_to_recovery_list(). >>>> If the locking _ast_ comes back very fast just check ::cancel_pending in dlm_proxy_ast_handler() and clear it. >>>> Then with the logic checking if the lock is on grant list (in dlmunlock_common() more less like your current method) >>>> or not we can easily tell if the cancellation succeeds or not. >>>> >>>> That complies the original dlm design, which I think is better and easier for maintainers to understand. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Changwei >>>> >>>> On 2018/12/6 20:06, wangjian wrote: >>>>> Hi Changwei, >>>>> >>>>> I don't fully agree with your point of view. In my opinion, the lock cancellation process and the lock >>>>> conversion process are asynchronous. We can't guarantee that the lock must be in the convert list >>>>> during the lock conversion process, otherwise this BUG will not happen. >>>>> So, I think this is a meaningless BUG. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Jian >>>>> >>>>> On 12/5/2018 9:49 AM, Changwei Ge wrote: >>>>>> Hi Jian, >>>>>> >>>>>> I suppose you can't just remove the BUG_ON() check. >>>>>> If you remove it, below code violates the original logic. >>>>>> >>>>>> ''' >>>>>> 2141 dlm_commit_pending_cancel(res, lock); >>>>>> ''' >>>>>> >>>>>> What's more important is *locking cancel* must be against a *locking conversion* progress. >>>>>> So it makes sense to check if this lock is on converting list. >>>>>> >>>>>> So I have to NACK to this patch. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> Changwei >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 2018/12/3 20:23, wangjian wrote: >>>>>>> In the dlm_move_lockres_to_recovery_list function, if the lock >>>>>>> is in the granted queue and cancel_pending is set, it will >>>>>>> encounter a BUG. I think this is a meaningless BUG, >>>>>>> so be prepared to remove it. A scenario that causes >>>>>>> this BUG will be given below. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> At the beginning, Node 1 is the master and has NL lock, >>>>>>> Node 2 has PR lock, Node 3 has PR lock too. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Node 1 Node 2 Node 3 >>>>>>> want to get EX lock. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> want to get EX lock. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Node 3 hinder >>>>>>> Node 2 to get >>>>>>> EX lock, send >>>>>>> Node 3 a BAST. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> receive BAST from >>>>>>> Node 1. downconvert >>>>>>> thread begin to >>>>>>> cancel PR to EX conversion. >>>>>>> In dlmunlock_common function, >>>>>>> downconvert thread has set >>>>>>> lock->cancel_pending, >>>>>>> but did not enter >>>>>>> dlm_send_remote_unlock_request >>>>>>> function. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Node2 dies because >>>>>>> the host is powered down. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In recovery process, >>>>>>> clean the lock that >>>>>>> related to Node2. >>>>>>> then finish Node 3 >>>>>>> PR to EX request. >>>>>>> give Node 3 a AST. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> receive AST from Node 1. >>>>>>> change lock level to EX, >>>>>>> move lock to granted list. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Node1 dies because >>>>>>> the host is powered down. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In dlm_move_lockres_to_recovery_list >>>>>>> function. the lock is in the >>>>>>> granted queue and cancel_pending >>>>>>> is set. BUG_ON. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But after clearing this BUG, process will encounter >>>>>>> the second BUG in the ocfs2_unlock_ast function. >>>>>>> Here is a scenario that will cause the second BUG >>>>>>> in ocfs2_unlock_ast as follows: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> At the beginning, Node 1 is the master and has NL lock, >>>>>>> Node 2 has PR lock, Node 3 has PR lock too. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Node 1 Node 2 Node 3 >>>>>>> want to get EX lock. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> want to get EX lock. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Node 3 hinder >>>>>>> Node 2 to get >>>>>>> EX lock, send >>>>>>> Node 3 a BAST. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> receive BAST from >>>>>>> Node 1. downconvert >>>>>>> thread begin to >>>>>>> cancel PR to EX conversion. >>>>>>> In dlmunlock_common function, >>>>>>> downconvert thread has released >>>>>>> lock->spinlock and res->spinlock, >>>>>>> but did not enter >>>>>>> dlm_send_remote_unlock_request >>>>>>> function. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Node2 dies because >>>>>>> the host is powered down. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In recovery process, >>>>>>> clean the lock that >>>>>>> related to Node2. >>>>>>> then finish Node 3 >>>>>>> PR to EX request. >>>>>>> give Node 3 a AST. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> receive AST from Node 1. >>>>>>> change lock level to EX, >>>>>>> move lock to granted list, >>>>>>> set lockres->l_unlock_action >>>>>>> as OCFS2_UNLOCK_INVALID >>>>>>> in ocfs2_locking_ast function. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Node2 dies because >>>>>>> the host is powered down. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Node 3 realize that Node 1 >>>>>>> is dead, remove Node 1 from >>>>>>> domain_map. downconvert thread >>>>>>> get DLM_NORMAL from >>>>>>> dlm_send_remote_unlock_request >>>>>>> function and set *call_ast as 1. >>>>>>> Then downconvert thread meet >>>>>>> BUG in ocfs2_unlock_ast function. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> To avoid meet the second BUG, function dlmunlock_common shuold >>>>>>> return DLM_CANCELGRANT if the lock is on granted list and >>>>>>> the operation is canceled. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jian Wang<wangjian161 at huawei.com> >>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Yiwen Jiang<jiangyiwen at huawei.com> >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmrecovery.c | 1 - >>>>>>> fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmunlock.c | 5 +++++ >>>>>>> 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> diff --git a/fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmrecovery.c b/fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmrecovery.c >>>>>>> index 802636d..7489652 100644 >>>>>>> --- a/fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmrecovery.c >>>>>>> +++ b/fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmrecovery.c >>>>>>> @@ -2134,7 +2134,6 @@ void dlm_move_lockres_to_recovery_list(struct dlm_ctxt *dlm, >>>>>>> * if this had completed successfully >>>>>>> * before sending this lock state to the >>>>>>> * new master */ >>>>>>> - BUG_ON(i != DLM_CONVERTING_LIST); >>>>>>> mlog(0, "node died with cancel pending " >>>>>>> "on %.*s. move back to granted list.\n", >>>>>>> res->lockname.len, res->lockname.name); >>>>>>> diff --git a/fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmunlock.c b/fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmunlock.c >>>>>>> index 63d701c..505bb6c 100644 >>>>>>> --- a/fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmunlock.c >>>>>>> +++ b/fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmunlock.c >>>>>>> @@ -183,6 +183,11 @@ static enum dlm_status dlmunlock_common(struct dlm_ctxt *dlm, >>>>>>> flags, owner); >>>>>>> spin_lock(&res->spinlock); >>>>>>> spin_lock(&lock->spinlock); >>>>>>> + >>>>>>> + if ((flags & LKM_CANCEL) && >>>>>>> + dlm_lock_on_list(&res->granted, lock)) >>>>>>> + status = DLM_CANCELGRANT; >>>>>>> + >>>>>>> /* if the master told us the lock was already granted, >>>>>>> * let the ast handle all of these actions */ >>>>>>> if (status == DLM_CANCELGRANT) { >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> 1.8.3.1 >>>>>>> >>>>>> . >>>>>> >>>> . >>>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Ocfs2-devel mailing list >>> Ocfs2-devel at oss.oracle.com >>> https://oss.oracle.com/mailman/listinfo/ocfs2-devel >>> >> > . >
Changwei Ge
2019-Feb-15 07:06 UTC
[Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH] ocfs2/dlm: return DLM_CANCELGRANT if the lock is on granted list and the operation is canceled
Hi Jun, On 2019/2/15 14:51, piaojun wrote:> Hi Changwei, > > On 2019/2/14 18:13, Changwei Ge wrote: >> On 2019/2/14 17:09, piaojun wrote: >>> Hi Changwei, >>> >>> The problem can't be solved completely if clear ::cancel_pending in >>> dlm_proxy_ast_handler, as AST will come at anytime just before >> >> So how about also add check here bere setting ::cancel_pending in dlmunlock_common() before invoking dlm_send_remote_unlock_request(). >> If already on grant list just return DLM_CANCELGRANT >> >> Then a further reference code might look like: >> >> root at ubuntu16:/home/chge/linux[master]# git diff >> diff --git a/fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmast.c b/fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmast.c >> index 39831fc..812843b 100644 >> --- a/fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmast.c >> +++ b/fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmast.c >> @@ -372,8 +372,11 @@ int dlm_proxy_ast_handler(struct o2net_msg *msg, u32 len, void *data, >> head = &res->converting; >> lock = NULL; >> list_for_each_entry(lock, head, list) { >> - if (lock->ml.cookie == cookie) >> + if (lock->ml.cookie == cookie) { >> + if (lock->cancel_pending) >> + lock->cancel_pending = 0; >> goto do_ast; >> + } >> } >> >> /* if not on convert, try blocked for ast, granted for bast */ >> diff --git a/fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmunlock.c b/fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmunlock.c >> index c8e9b70..b4728b5 100644 >> --- a/fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmunlock.c >> +++ b/fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmunlock.c >> @@ -174,9 +174,14 @@ static enum dlm_status dlmunlock_common(struct dlm_ctxt *dlm, >> if (!master_node) { >> owner = res->owner; >> /* drop locks and send message */ >> - if (flags & LKM_CANCEL) >> + if (flags & LKM_CANCEL) { >> + if (dlm_lock_on_list(&res->granted, lock)) { >> + status = DLM_CANCELGRANT; >> + goto leave; > > If master dead and then lockres is moved to granted list in > dlm_move_lockres_to_recovery_list, the OCFS2_LOCK_BUSY is not cleared.OCFS2_LOCK_BUSY should be cleared in ocfs2_locking_ast() since previous locking AST has come back(moving lock to grant list). That's why we return DLM_CANCELGRANT to caller to avoid calling AST. Otherwise ast() will be called twice, which is obviously a BUG.> And this will cause stuck problem when ocfs2_drop_lock. The reason is > that unlock ast won't be done when DLM_CANCELGRANT is set. So I thinkWith above elaboration, you don't have to worry the hang issue anymore. Thanks, Changwei> we need distinguish all the cases of moving lockres to grant list. > >> + } >> + >> lock->cancel_pending = 1; >> - else >> + } else >> lock->unlock_pending = 1; >> spin_unlock(&lock->spinlock); >> spin_unlock(&res->spinlock); >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> Changwei >> >>> ::cancel_pendig is set. If there is not any other better solutions, >>> could we accept this patch? This bug is very harmful. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Jun >>> >>> On 2018/12/8 18:05, wangjian wrote: >>>> Hi Changwei, >>>> >>>> I understand your idea. But we should be aware that the cancel_convert process and >>>> other processes (accepting the AST process, the recovery process) are asynchronous. >>>> For example, according to your idea, check if the lock is in the grant queue before >>>> calling the dlm_send_remote_unlock_request function in the dlm_proxy_ast_handler function. >>>> Then decide whether to clear cancel_pending. But if the AST does not come at this time, >>>> the check passes and cancel_pendig will not be cleared. Then AST immediately came over again, >>>> which also led to a bug. I personally think that for asynchronous processes we can't guarantee >>>> the speed of execution of each process. All we can do is to avoid the BUG scene. >>>> >>>> As for the question you said ("If you remove the BUG check why you still call dlm_commit_pending_cancel() >>>> to move the lock back to grant on matter it's on converting list or not?"). >>>> I think we should first check if the lock is in the grant queue >>>> (at this time, dlm->spinlock and res->spinlock have been added), then decide whether to call >>>> dlm_commit_pending_cancel function. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Jian >>>> >>>> On 12/7/2018 11:12 AM, Changwei Ge wrote: >>>>> Hi Jian, >>>>> >>>>> I suppose that the situation you described truly exists. >>>>> But the way you fix the issue is not in my favor. >>>>> >>>>> If you remove the BUG check why you still call dlm_commit_pending_cancel() to >>>>> move the lock back to grant on matter it's on converting list or not? >>>>> >>>>> So how about keeping the BUG check in dlm_move_lockres_to_recovery_list(). >>>>> If the locking _ast_ comes back very fast just check ::cancel_pending in dlm_proxy_ast_handler() and clear it. >>>>> Then with the logic checking if the lock is on grant list (in dlmunlock_common() more less like your current method) >>>>> or not we can easily tell if the cancellation succeeds or not. >>>>> >>>>> That complies the original dlm design, which I think is better and easier for maintainers to understand. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Changwei >>>>> >>>>> On 2018/12/6 20:06, wangjian wrote: >>>>>> Hi Changwei, >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't fully agree with your point of view. In my opinion, the lock cancellation process and the lock >>>>>> conversion process are asynchronous. We can't guarantee that the lock must be in the convert list >>>>>> during the lock conversion process, otherwise this BUG will not happen. >>>>>> So, I think this is a meaningless BUG. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> Jian >>>>>> >>>>>> On 12/5/2018 9:49 AM, Changwei Ge wrote: >>>>>>> Hi Jian, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I suppose you can't just remove the BUG_ON() check. >>>>>>> If you remove it, below code violates the original logic. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ''' >>>>>>> 2141 dlm_commit_pending_cancel(res, lock); >>>>>>> ''' >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What's more important is *locking cancel* must be against a *locking conversion* progress. >>>>>>> So it makes sense to check if this lock is on converting list. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So I have to NACK to this patch. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> Changwei >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 2018/12/3 20:23, wangjian wrote: >>>>>>>> In the dlm_move_lockres_to_recovery_list function, if the lock >>>>>>>> is in the granted queue and cancel_pending is set, it will >>>>>>>> encounter a BUG. I think this is a meaningless BUG, >>>>>>>> so be prepared to remove it. A scenario that causes >>>>>>>> this BUG will be given below. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> At the beginning, Node 1 is the master and has NL lock, >>>>>>>> Node 2 has PR lock, Node 3 has PR lock too. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Node 1 Node 2 Node 3 >>>>>>>> want to get EX lock. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> want to get EX lock. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Node 3 hinder >>>>>>>> Node 2 to get >>>>>>>> EX lock, send >>>>>>>> Node 3 a BAST. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> receive BAST from >>>>>>>> Node 1. downconvert >>>>>>>> thread begin to >>>>>>>> cancel PR to EX conversion. >>>>>>>> In dlmunlock_common function, >>>>>>>> downconvert thread has set >>>>>>>> lock->cancel_pending, >>>>>>>> but did not enter >>>>>>>> dlm_send_remote_unlock_request >>>>>>>> function. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Node2 dies because >>>>>>>> the host is powered down. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In recovery process, >>>>>>>> clean the lock that >>>>>>>> related to Node2. >>>>>>>> then finish Node 3 >>>>>>>> PR to EX request. >>>>>>>> give Node 3 a AST. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> receive AST from Node 1. >>>>>>>> change lock level to EX, >>>>>>>> move lock to granted list. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Node1 dies because >>>>>>>> the host is powered down. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In dlm_move_lockres_to_recovery_list >>>>>>>> function. the lock is in the >>>>>>>> granted queue and cancel_pending >>>>>>>> is set. BUG_ON. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But after clearing this BUG, process will encounter >>>>>>>> the second BUG in the ocfs2_unlock_ast function. >>>>>>>> Here is a scenario that will cause the second BUG >>>>>>>> in ocfs2_unlock_ast as follows: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> At the beginning, Node 1 is the master and has NL lock, >>>>>>>> Node 2 has PR lock, Node 3 has PR lock too. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Node 1 Node 2 Node 3 >>>>>>>> want to get EX lock. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> want to get EX lock. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Node 3 hinder >>>>>>>> Node 2 to get >>>>>>>> EX lock, send >>>>>>>> Node 3 a BAST. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> receive BAST from >>>>>>>> Node 1. downconvert >>>>>>>> thread begin to >>>>>>>> cancel PR to EX conversion. >>>>>>>> In dlmunlock_common function, >>>>>>>> downconvert thread has released >>>>>>>> lock->spinlock and res->spinlock, >>>>>>>> but did not enter >>>>>>>> dlm_send_remote_unlock_request >>>>>>>> function. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Node2 dies because >>>>>>>> the host is powered down. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In recovery process, >>>>>>>> clean the lock that >>>>>>>> related to Node2. >>>>>>>> then finish Node 3 >>>>>>>> PR to EX request. >>>>>>>> give Node 3 a AST. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> receive AST from Node 1. >>>>>>>> change lock level to EX, >>>>>>>> move lock to granted list, >>>>>>>> set lockres->l_unlock_action >>>>>>>> as OCFS2_UNLOCK_INVALID >>>>>>>> in ocfs2_locking_ast function. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Node2 dies because >>>>>>>> the host is powered down. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Node 3 realize that Node 1 >>>>>>>> is dead, remove Node 1 from >>>>>>>> domain_map. downconvert thread >>>>>>>> get DLM_NORMAL from >>>>>>>> dlm_send_remote_unlock_request >>>>>>>> function and set *call_ast as 1. >>>>>>>> Then downconvert thread meet >>>>>>>> BUG in ocfs2_unlock_ast function. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> To avoid meet the second BUG, function dlmunlock_common shuold >>>>>>>> return DLM_CANCELGRANT if the lock is on granted list and >>>>>>>> the operation is canceled. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jian Wang<wangjian161 at huawei.com> >>>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Yiwen Jiang<jiangyiwen at huawei.com> >>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>> fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmrecovery.c | 1 - >>>>>>>> fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmunlock.c | 5 +++++ >>>>>>>> 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> diff --git a/fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmrecovery.c b/fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmrecovery.c >>>>>>>> index 802636d..7489652 100644 >>>>>>>> --- a/fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmrecovery.c >>>>>>>> +++ b/fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmrecovery.c >>>>>>>> @@ -2134,7 +2134,6 @@ void dlm_move_lockres_to_recovery_list(struct dlm_ctxt *dlm, >>>>>>>> * if this had completed successfully >>>>>>>> * before sending this lock state to the >>>>>>>> * new master */ >>>>>>>> - BUG_ON(i != DLM_CONVERTING_LIST); >>>>>>>> mlog(0, "node died with cancel pending " >>>>>>>> "on %.*s. move back to granted list.\n", >>>>>>>> res->lockname.len, res->lockname.name); >>>>>>>> diff --git a/fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmunlock.c b/fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmunlock.c >>>>>>>> index 63d701c..505bb6c 100644 >>>>>>>> --- a/fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmunlock.c >>>>>>>> +++ b/fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmunlock.c >>>>>>>> @@ -183,6 +183,11 @@ static enum dlm_status dlmunlock_common(struct dlm_ctxt *dlm, >>>>>>>> flags, owner); >>>>>>>> spin_lock(&res->spinlock); >>>>>>>> spin_lock(&lock->spinlock); >>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>> + if ((flags & LKM_CANCEL) && >>>>>>>> + dlm_lock_on_list(&res->granted, lock)) >>>>>>>> + status = DLM_CANCELGRANT; >>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>> /* if the master told us the lock was already granted, >>>>>>>> * let the ast handle all of these actions */ >>>>>>>> if (status == DLM_CANCELGRANT) { >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> 1.8.3.1 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> . >>>>>>> >>>>> . >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Ocfs2-devel mailing list >>>> Ocfs2-devel at oss.oracle.com >>>> https://oss.oracle.com/mailman/listinfo/ocfs2-devel >>>> >>> >> . >> >