I ran into a curious issue when a lock is being canceled. The
cancellation results in a lock request to the vfs layer instead of an
unlock request. This is particularly insidious when the process that
owns the lock is exiting. In that case, sometimes the erroneous lock is
applied AFTER the process has entered zombie state, preventing the lock
from ever being released. Eventually other processes block on the lock
causing a slow degredation of the system. In the 2.6.16 kernel this was
investigated on, the problem is compounded by the fact that the cl_sem
is held while blocking on the vfs lock, which results in most processes
accessing the nfs file system in question hanging.

In more detail, here is how the situation occurs:

first _nfs4_do_setlk():

static int _nfs4_do_setlk(struct nfs4_state *state, int cmd, struct file_lock *fl, int reclaim)
...
        ret = nfs4_wait_for_completion_rpc_task(task);
        if (ret == 0) {
...
        } else
                data->cancelled = 1;

then nfs4_lock_release():

static void nfs4_lock_release(void *calldata)
...
        if (data->cancelled != 0) {
                struct rpc_task *task;
                task = nfs4_do_unlck(&data->fl, data->ctx, data->lsp,
                                data->arg.lock_seqid);

The problem is the same file_lock that was passed in to _nfs4_do_setlk()
gets passed to nfs4_do_unlck() from nfs4_lock_release(). So the type is
still F_RDLCK or FWRLCK, not F_UNLCK. At some point, when cancelling the
lock, the type needs to be changed to F_UNLCK. It seemed easiest to do
that in nfs4_do_unlck(), but it could be done in nfs4_lock_release().
The concern I had with doing it there was if something still needed the
original file_lock, though it turns out the original file_lock still
needs to be modified by nfs4_do_unlck() because nfs4_do_unlck() uses the
original file_lock to pass to the vfs layer, and a copy of the original
file_lock for the RPC request.

It seems like the simplest solution is to force all situations where
nfs4_do_unlck() is being used to result in an unlock, so with that in
mind, I made the following change:
Signed-off-by: NFrank Filz <ffilzlnx@us.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: NTrond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com>