| Message ID | 20130613025342.31861.65340.stgit@notabene.brown (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
diff --git a/net/sunrpc/cache.c b/net/sunrpc/cache.c index d01eb07..13dad67 100644 --- a/net/sunrpc/cache.c +++ b/net/sunrpc/cache.c @@ -262,7 +262,8 @@ int cache_check(struct cache_detail *detail, if (rqstp == NULL) { if (rv == -EAGAIN) rv = -ENOENT; - } else if (rv == -EAGAIN || age > refresh_age/2) { + } else if (rv == -EAGAIN || + (h->expiry_time != 0 && age > refresh_age/2)) { dprintk("RPC: Want update, refage=%ld, age=%ld\n", refresh_age, age); if (!test_and_set_bit(CACHE_PENDING, &h->flags)) {
When a cache entry is replaced, the "expiry_time" get set to zero by a call to "cache_fresh_locked(..., 0)" at the end of "sunrpc_cache_update". This low expiry time makes cache_check() think that the 'refresh_age' is negative, so the 'age' is comparatively large and a refresh is triggered. However refreshing a replaced entry it pointless, it cannot achieve anything useful. So teach cache_check to ignore a low refresh_age when expiry_time is zero. Reported-by: Bodo Stroesser <bstroesser@ts.fujitsu.com> Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de> --- net/sunrpc/cache.c | 3 ++- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html