All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
To: Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com>
Cc: "linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org" <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>,
	"netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: NFS TCP race condition with SOCK_ASYNC_NOSPACE
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 12:34:34 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4ECB96DA.9030202@citrix.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1321964578.7645.9.camel@lade.trondhjem.org>



On 22/11/11 12:22, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-11-22 at 12:16 +0000, Andrew Cooper wrote: 
>> On 22/11/11 12:10, Trond Myklebust wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2011-11-22 at 12:02 +0000, Andrew Cooper wrote: 
>>>> On 22/11/11 11:38, Trond Myklebust wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 2011-11-21 at 18:14 +0000, Andrew Cooper wrote: 
>>>>>> Following some debugging, I believe that the attached patch fixes the
>>>>>> problem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Simply returning EAGAIN is not sufficient, as the task does not get
>>>>>> requeued, and times out 13 seconds later (as per our mount options). 
>>>>>> Setting the SOCK_ASYNC_NOSPACE bit causes the requeue to happen.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I realize that this is a gross hack and I should probably not be using
>>>>>> SOCK_ASYNC_NOSPACE in that way.  Is there a better way to achieve the
>>>>>> same solution?
>>>>>>
>>>>> What you are doing will cause the request to be put to sleep with no
>>>>> guarantee that it will ever be woken up. Why would we want to do that if
>>>>> there is no report of a tcp window/buffer space congestion?
>>>> But the reason we get to this code is because there was a report of
>>>> space collision.  What would you suggest instead?  Changing
>>>> xs_{tcp,udp}_send_request() to retry in this case would defeat the point
>>>> of having xs_nospace().
>>> I suggest doing absolutely nothing: do what you originally proposed,
>>> which is to report the EAGAIN so that the client state machine retries
>>> the socket write.
>>>
>>> My point is that this is a context which is _not_ atomic with the
>>> original report of tcp window/buffer space congestion. There are no
>>> locks or anything else that will guarantee that the congestion still
>>> exists, and the fact that the SOCK_ASYNC_NOSPACE flag is now clear
>>> indicates that this is the case.
>>> The whole purpose of xs_nospace() is to wait until a congestion
>>> condition clears. If the congestion clears before we get here, then we
>>> have no reason to do anything special other than retry.
>>>
>>> Trond
>> I am slightly confused as to what you mean now.
>>
>> When you take out the if(test_bit test and always set ret to EAGAIN and
>> requeue the request, the next time it wakes up is when it is killed due
>> to timeout.  This results in substantially worse effects for the
>> userspace, as the NFS session is killed.
> What is putting the request to sleep? It should be awake when it enters
> xs_nospace(), and nothing in or after that function should be putting it
> to sleep until we've retried with call_transmit().
>

I presume it is the call to xprt_wait_for_buffer_space() which calls
rpc_sleep_on().  There is xs_tcp_write_space which appears to wake it up
based on sk->sk_write_space which is triggered on the sock gaining more
space, which has already happened in this specific case.

Sorry if I am being a bit slow here - I am still learning my way round
an unfamiliar codebase.

>> Did you mean something else when you said "always report EAGAIN"?
> Nope.
>

-- 
Andrew Cooper - Dom0 Kernel Engineer, Citrix XenServer
T: +44 (0)1223 225 900, http://www.citrix.com


WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3-Sxgqhf6Nn4DQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
To: Trond Myklebust
	<Trond.Myklebust-HgOvQuBEEgTQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
Cc: "linux-nfs-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org"
	<linux-nfs-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>,
	"netdev-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org"
	<netdev-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: NFS TCP race condition with SOCK_ASYNC_NOSPACE
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 12:34:34 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4ECB96DA.9030202@citrix.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1321964578.7645.9.camel-SyLVLa/KEI9HwK5hSS5vWB2eb7JE58TQ@public.gmane.org>



On 22/11/11 12:22, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-11-22 at 12:16 +0000, Andrew Cooper wrote: 
>> On 22/11/11 12:10, Trond Myklebust wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2011-11-22 at 12:02 +0000, Andrew Cooper wrote: 
>>>> On 22/11/11 11:38, Trond Myklebust wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 2011-11-21 at 18:14 +0000, Andrew Cooper wrote: 
>>>>>> Following some debugging, I believe that the attached patch fixes the
>>>>>> problem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Simply returning EAGAIN is not sufficient, as the task does not get
>>>>>> requeued, and times out 13 seconds later (as per our mount options). 
>>>>>> Setting the SOCK_ASYNC_NOSPACE bit causes the requeue to happen.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I realize that this is a gross hack and I should probably not be using
>>>>>> SOCK_ASYNC_NOSPACE in that way.  Is there a better way to achieve the
>>>>>> same solution?
>>>>>>
>>>>> What you are doing will cause the request to be put to sleep with no
>>>>> guarantee that it will ever be woken up. Why would we want to do that if
>>>>> there is no report of a tcp window/buffer space congestion?
>>>> But the reason we get to this code is because there was a report of
>>>> space collision.  What would you suggest instead?  Changing
>>>> xs_{tcp,udp}_send_request() to retry in this case would defeat the point
>>>> of having xs_nospace().
>>> I suggest doing absolutely nothing: do what you originally proposed,
>>> which is to report the EAGAIN so that the client state machine retries
>>> the socket write.
>>>
>>> My point is that this is a context which is _not_ atomic with the
>>> original report of tcp window/buffer space congestion. There are no
>>> locks or anything else that will guarantee that the congestion still
>>> exists, and the fact that the SOCK_ASYNC_NOSPACE flag is now clear
>>> indicates that this is the case.
>>> The whole purpose of xs_nospace() is to wait until a congestion
>>> condition clears. If the congestion clears before we get here, then we
>>> have no reason to do anything special other than retry.
>>>
>>> Trond
>> I am slightly confused as to what you mean now.
>>
>> When you take out the if(test_bit test and always set ret to EAGAIN and
>> requeue the request, the next time it wakes up is when it is killed due
>> to timeout.  This results in substantially worse effects for the
>> userspace, as the NFS session is killed.
> What is putting the request to sleep? It should be awake when it enters
> xs_nospace(), and nothing in or after that function should be putting it
> to sleep until we've retried with call_transmit().
>

I presume it is the call to xprt_wait_for_buffer_space() which calls
rpc_sleep_on().  There is xs_tcp_write_space which appears to wake it up
based on sk->sk_write_space which is triggered on the sock gaining more
space, which has already happened in this specific case.

Sorry if I am being a bit slow here - I am still learning my way round
an unfamiliar codebase.

>> Did you mean something else when you said "always report EAGAIN"?
> Nope.
>

-- 
Andrew Cooper - Dom0 Kernel Engineer, Citrix XenServer
T: +44 (0)1223 225 900, http://www.citrix.com

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

  reply	other threads:[~2011-11-22 12:34 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-11-18 18:40 NFS TCP race condition with SOCK_ASYNC_NOSPACE Andrew Cooper
2011-11-18 18:40 ` Andrew Cooper
2011-11-18 18:52 ` Trond Myklebust
2011-11-18 18:52   ` Trond Myklebust
2011-11-18 19:04   ` Andrew Cooper
2011-11-18 19:04     ` Andrew Cooper
2011-11-18 19:14     ` Trond Myklebust
2011-11-18 19:14       ` Trond Myklebust
2011-11-18 19:55       ` Andrew Cooper
2011-11-18 19:55         ` Andrew Cooper
2011-11-21 18:14         ` Andrew Cooper
2011-11-21 18:14           ` Andrew Cooper
2011-11-22 11:38           ` Trond Myklebust
2011-11-22 11:38             ` Trond Myklebust
2011-11-22 12:02             ` Andrew Cooper
2011-11-22 12:10               ` Trond Myklebust
2011-11-22 12:16                 ` Andrew Cooper
2011-11-22 12:22                   ` Trond Myklebust
2011-11-22 12:34                     ` Andrew Cooper [this message]
2011-11-22 12:34                       ` Andrew Cooper
2011-11-22 12:45                       ` Trond Myklebust
2011-11-22 12:45                         ` Trond Myklebust
2011-11-22 13:23                         ` Andrew Cooper
2011-11-22 13:23                           ` Andrew Cooper

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=4ECB96DA.9030202@citrix.com \
    --to=andrew.cooper3@citrix.com \
    --cc=Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com \
    --cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.