[SOLVED)make CIFS less "talkative"

Manix · 2023-04-09 12:23:30

Hi,

since the last update cifs this one spam my log of :

CIFS: __readahead_batch() returned

nothing problematic however it is very unpleasant. searching in the cifs man i found nothing conclusive.
so is there any way to make it less talkative?

CIFS version : (cifs-utils) 7.0-3
FSTAB mount :

//192.168.1.254/Freebox       /mnt/freebox          cifs        _netdev,nofail,noauto,x-systemd.automount,x-systemd.mount-timeout=300s,credentials=/etc/.credentials,iocharset=utf8,uid=1000,gid=1000,vers=3  0 0

Last edited by Manix (2023-04-10 09:08:44)

seth · 2023-04-09 18:31:12

https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest … le.c#L4808

Is the line really just that w/o two numbers behind?

Manix · 2023-04-09 19:53:31

Is the line really just that w/o two numbers behind?

yes there are numbers between 1 and 16
this happens when I manipulate folders or files.

ex :

CIFS: __readahead_batch() returned 11/16

Last edited by Manix (2023-04-09 19:56:15)

seth · 2023-04-09 20:46:36

It's a legitimate warning, you can silence those, https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/ … asics.html but maybe should rather address the cause.

since the last update cifs this one spam my log of

What was updated? readahead_batch is used since early 2022, so the issue might be an underlying network one.

Manix · 2023-04-09 22:29:41

some test with :

echo # > /proc/sys/kernel/printk

with no result.

What was updated? readahead_batch is used since early 2022, so the issue might be an underlying network one.

I had a recent update of cifs_utils and I didn't have this problem before. I changed my internet box in between that may not help either.
Maybe look at the subnet as you suggest.

I don't mind the warning, but this is really a flood

Last edited by Manix (2023-04-10 08:19:21)

seth · 2023-04-10 06:18:47

some test with echo # > /proc/sys/kernel/printk
with no result.

Please don't paraphrase, https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=57855

I had a recent update of cifs_utils and I didn't have this problem before.

Did you try whether downgrading them avoids this problem?

Manix · 2023-04-10 09:07:03

Did you try whether downgrading them avoids this problem?

unfortunately, I don't have any version prior to cifs. I had to purge it when I changed my netbox ...

However, reading more carefully mount.cifs(8) I have deactivated the cache.
cache=none, in my mount options.

I don't really know if this will have an impact on performance or not, but when copying files or reading via mpv no more spam!

Last edited by Manix (2023-04-10 09:08:19)

seth · 2023-04-10 12:28:38

unfortunately, I don't have any version prior to cifs

https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Arch_Linux_Archive

Was it disabled before?
https://man.archlinux.org/man/mount.cif … _COHERENCY
Is there another client accessing the same share at the same time?

Manix · 2023-04-10 13:40:42

Was it disabled before?

no, I just added "vers=3" while proofreading cifs/samba on the wiki.

Is there another client accessing the same share at the same time?

yes, there is a download manager that works on it.

humm by asking me this question, I see that it can simply come from an update of my netbox.

seth · 2023-04-10 13:44:33

If that client alters the share w/o proper oplocks, it could be the source yes.
=> Re-enable the cache, stop the download manager and see whether the errors go away.
If yes, look around for the config of that download manager (resp. the share access on the OS level)

Manix · 2023-04-10 15:24:18

=> Re-enable the cache, stop the download manager and see whether the errors go away.

bingo! after this test no more spam worries too
it comes from the netbox system.
Unfortunately the interface of "freebox OS" is still very basic, apart from activating smb2/3 or windows sharing and printer, not much.

seth · 2023-04-10 15:49:57

If you can't fix that system you're probably better off w/o the cache - regardless of the performance impact - because of the externl incoherency.
It also suggests to be quite careful w/ anything close to a concurrent file access in general (ie. accessing the same file from both systems might corrupt it)

This thing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freebox ?
It says it uses busybox - do you get a shell access to it (telnet/ssh) or only the GUI?

Manix · 2023-04-10 16:59:54

If you can't fix that system you're probably better off w/o the cache - regardless of the performance impact - because of the externl incoherency.
It also suggests to be quite careful w/ anything close to a concurrent file access in general (ie. accessing the same file from both systems might corrupt it)

thank you for this information, maybe stopping a download individually and then reading or moving it could solve the problem.

This thing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freebox ?

no, I didn't find my version on wilkipedia english.
this one pop_v8 and I access it via firefox GUI.
"freebox OS" is linux based however I don't think I can access it via ssh.
which is a shame grrrr

seth · 2023-04-10 19:22:01

Did you check nmap to see whether ports 22, 23 or 443 are open?

Manix · 2023-04-11 05:39:35

don't know this tool, handy!

Starting Nmap 7.93 ( https://nmap.org ) at 2023-04-11 07:36 CEST
Nmap scan report for 192.168.1.254
Host is up (0.00024s latency).

PORT    STATE  SERVICE
22/tcp  closed ssh
23/tcp  closed telnet
443/tcp open   https

Nmap done: 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 0.02 seconds

closed :c

Arch Linux

#1 2023-04-09 12:23:30

[SOLVED)make CIFS less "talkative"

#2 2023-04-09 18:31:12

Re: [SOLVED)make CIFS less "talkative"

#3 2023-04-09 19:53:31

Re: [SOLVED)make CIFS less "talkative"

#4 2023-04-09 20:46:36

Re: [SOLVED)make CIFS less "talkative"

#5 2023-04-09 22:29:41

Re: [SOLVED)make CIFS less "talkative"

#6 2023-04-10 06:18:47

Re: [SOLVED)make CIFS less "talkative"

#7 2023-04-10 09:07:03

Re: [SOLVED)make CIFS less "talkative"

#8 2023-04-10 12:28:38

Re: [SOLVED)make CIFS less "talkative"

#9 2023-04-10 13:40:42

Re: [SOLVED)make CIFS less "talkative"

#10 2023-04-10 13:44:33

Re: [SOLVED)make CIFS less "talkative"

#11 2023-04-10 15:24:18

Re: [SOLVED)make CIFS less "talkative"

#12 2023-04-10 15:49:57

Re: [SOLVED)make CIFS less "talkative"

#13 2023-04-10 16:59:54

Re: [SOLVED)make CIFS less "talkative"

#14 2023-04-10 19:22:01

Re: [SOLVED)make CIFS less "talkative"

#15 2023-04-11 05:39:35

Re: [SOLVED)make CIFS less "talkative"

Board footer