* [PATCH] libceph: fix "safe" completion @ 2013-04-30 13:17 Yan, Zheng 2013-04-30 17:04 ` Gregory Farnum 0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread From: Yan, Zheng @ 2013-04-30 13:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: ceph-devel; +Cc: elder, Yan, Zheng From: "Yan, Zheng" <zheng.z.yan@intel.com> complete_request() is never called if the first OSD replay doesn't have ONDISK flag. Signed-off-by: Yan, Zheng <zheng.z.yan@intel.com> --- include/linux/ceph/osd_client.h | 1 - net/ceph/osd_client.c | 16 ++++++++-------- 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) diff --git a/include/linux/ceph/osd_client.h b/include/linux/ceph/osd_client.h index 4191cd2..70f79fb 100644 --- a/include/linux/ceph/osd_client.h +++ b/include/linux/ceph/osd_client.h @@ -145,7 +145,6 @@ struct ceph_osd_request { s32 r_reply_op_result[CEPH_OSD_MAX_OP]; int r_got_reply; int r_linger; - int r_completed; struct ceph_osd_client *r_osdc; struct kref r_kref; diff --git a/net/ceph/osd_client.c b/net/ceph/osd_client.c index 57d8db5..8a5fc37 100644 --- a/net/ceph/osd_client.c +++ b/net/ceph/osd_client.c @@ -1522,6 +1522,8 @@ static void handle_reply(struct ceph_osd_client *osdc, struct ceph_msg *msg, for (i = 0; i < numops; i++) req->r_reply_op_result[i] = ceph_decode_32(&p); + already_completed = req->r_got_reply; + if (!req->r_got_reply) { req->r_result = result; @@ -1552,16 +1554,14 @@ static void handle_reply(struct ceph_osd_client *osdc, struct ceph_msg *msg, ((flags & CEPH_OSD_FLAG_WRITE) == 0)) __unregister_request(osdc, req); - already_completed = req->r_completed; - req->r_completed = 1; mutex_unlock(&osdc->request_mutex); - if (already_completed) - goto done; - if (req->r_callback) - req->r_callback(req, msg); - else - complete_all(&req->r_completion); + if (!already_completed) { + if (req->r_callback) + req->r_callback(req, msg); + else + complete_all(&req->r_completion); + } if (flags & CEPH_OSD_FLAG_ONDISK) complete_request(req); -- 1.8.1.4 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] libceph: fix "safe" completion 2013-04-30 13:17 [PATCH] libceph: fix "safe" completion Yan, Zheng @ 2013-04-30 17:04 ` Gregory Farnum 2013-05-01 10:13 ` Yan, Zheng 0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread From: Gregory Farnum @ 2013-04-30 17:04 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Yan, Zheng; +Cc: ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org, Alex Elder I was looking at this code recently and had similar thoughts; I've included the relevant parts of a conversation on this topic below. In light of that I'm not sure if this patch is appropriate or not (it might be; it certainly needs some cleanup IMO). -Greg Software Engineer #42 @ http://inktank.com | http://ceph.com ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Sage Weil <sage@inktank.com> Date: Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 1:41 PM Subject: Re: use of osd_client's r_callback To: Gregory Farnum <greg@inktank.com> Cc: Alex Elder <elder@inktank.com>, Josh Durgin <josh.durgin@inktank.com> It is a bit fragile, but not broken AFAICS. We only se the FLAG_ACK flag on the request (which controls whether we get an ACK in addition to a COMMIT reply from the osd) for the sync write path (O_DIRECT and O_SYNC writes).. and in that case, the callback is expecting to be called on the ack and the commit is just clenaing up that safe/unsafe list for fsync. I think we could clean this code up so that the names and meanings of the callbacks are more consistent (e.g., r_commit_callback vs r_ack_callback)... s On Thu, 18 Apr 2013, Gregory Farnum wrote: > The recent series of patches to deal with deadlocks has me spending a > little bit more time looking at the kernel client, especially after I > didn't understand some of the comments going back and forth about safe > and unsafe lists and callbacks (specifically, compared to their > meanings in userspace). This investigation has left me concerned, and > maybe confused, about when we're reporting writes as done. > > In particular, following on from change to "unsafe" so it no longer > indicates any communication from the OSD (which might be fine?), I > spent some time looking at how the other callback is handled. As best > I can tell, the osdc's "r_callback" is used, from the caller's > perspective (drivers/block/rbd.c and fs/ceph/*), to indicate that a > write is permanent and it can forget the data/unlock the pages/etc ? > this matches what the userspace clients do with a "safe" response. > However, in looking at the handle_reply() function, it sure looks to > me as if r_callback() is invoked on the first reply from an OSD ? > which can in many cases be an "unsafe" reply meaning that the data > hasn't been persisted yet! The only reference I can find to it seeing > if the reply is a safe or unsafe reply happens during duplicate > response checking, on the second (or subsequent) responses. > > Am I missing something here, or is the kernel client broken under OSD > failures? (I note that these issues aren't going to turn up when the > OSDs are running xfs/ext4 because on those FSes the first reply will > always be the "safe" response, which explains why we haven't detected > them if there are no other reasons.) > -Greg > > On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 6:17 AM, Yan, Zheng <zheng.z.yan@intel.com> wrote: > From: "Yan, Zheng" <zheng.z.yan@intel.com> > > complete_request() is never called if the first OSD replay doesn't > have ONDISK flag. > > Signed-off-by: Yan, Zheng <zheng.z.yan@intel.com> > --- > include/linux/ceph/osd_client.h | 1 - > net/ceph/osd_client.c | 16 ++++++++-------- > 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/include/linux/ceph/osd_client.h b/include/linux/ceph/osd_client.h > index 4191cd2..70f79fb 100644 > --- a/include/linux/ceph/osd_client.h > +++ b/include/linux/ceph/osd_client.h > @@ -145,7 +145,6 @@ struct ceph_osd_request { > s32 r_reply_op_result[CEPH_OSD_MAX_OP]; > int r_got_reply; > int r_linger; > - int r_completed; > > struct ceph_osd_client *r_osdc; > struct kref r_kref; > diff --git a/net/ceph/osd_client.c b/net/ceph/osd_client.c > index 57d8db5..8a5fc37 100644 > --- a/net/ceph/osd_client.c > +++ b/net/ceph/osd_client.c > @@ -1522,6 +1522,8 @@ static void handle_reply(struct ceph_osd_client *osdc, struct ceph_msg *msg, > for (i = 0; i < numops; i++) > req->r_reply_op_result[i] = ceph_decode_32(&p); > > + already_completed = req->r_got_reply; > + > if (!req->r_got_reply) { > > req->r_result = result; > @@ -1552,16 +1554,14 @@ static void handle_reply(struct ceph_osd_client *osdc, struct ceph_msg *msg, > ((flags & CEPH_OSD_FLAG_WRITE) == 0)) > __unregister_request(osdc, req); > > - already_completed = req->r_completed; > - req->r_completed = 1; > mutex_unlock(&osdc->request_mutex); > - if (already_completed) > - goto done; > > - if (req->r_callback) > - req->r_callback(req, msg); > - else > - complete_all(&req->r_completion); > + if (!already_completed) { > + if (req->r_callback) > + req->r_callback(req, msg); > + else > + complete_all(&req->r_completion); > + } > > if (flags & CEPH_OSD_FLAG_ONDISK) > complete_request(req); > -- > 1.8.1.4 > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] libceph: fix "safe" completion 2013-04-30 17:04 ` Gregory Farnum @ 2013-05-01 10:13 ` Yan, Zheng 0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread From: Yan, Zheng @ 2013-05-01 10:13 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Gregory Farnum; +Cc: ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org, Alex Elder The kernel client set the FLAG_ACK flag only when it can't get Fb or Fl caps (O_DIRECT and O_SYNC writes do not set the FLAG_ACK flag). ceph_sync_write() allocates separate buffer to hold user date, it's safe even in the case of OSD failure. I agree that the names and usages of callbacks are confusing. Other than that, I can't see any issue. Regards Yan, Zheng On 05/01/2013 01:04 AM, Gregory Farnum wrote: > I was looking at this code recently and had similar thoughts; I've > included the relevant parts of a conversation on this topic below. In > light of that I'm not sure if this patch is appropriate or not (it > might be; it certainly needs some cleanup IMO). > -Greg > Software Engineer #42 @ http://inktank.com | http://ceph.com > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Sage Weil <sage@inktank.com> > Date: Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 1:41 PM > Subject: Re: use of osd_client's r_callback > To: Gregory Farnum <greg@inktank.com> > Cc: Alex Elder <elder@inktank.com>, Josh Durgin <josh.durgin@inktank.com> > > > It is a bit fragile, but not broken AFAICS. We only se the FLAG_ACK flag > on the request (which controls whether we get an ACK in addition to a > COMMIT reply from the osd) for the sync write path (O_DIRECT and O_SYNC > writes).. and in that case, the callback is expecting to be called on the > ack and the commit is just clenaing up that safe/unsafe list for fsync. > > I think we could clean this code up so that the names and meanings of the > callbacks are more consistent (e.g., r_commit_callback vs > r_ack_callback)... > > s > > On Thu, 18 Apr 2013, Gregory Farnum wrote: > >> The recent series of patches to deal with deadlocks has me spending a >> little bit more time looking at the kernel client, especially after I >> didn't understand some of the comments going back and forth about safe >> and unsafe lists and callbacks (specifically, compared to their >> meanings in userspace). This investigation has left me concerned, and >> maybe confused, about when we're reporting writes as done. >> >> In particular, following on from change to "unsafe" so it no longer >> indicates any communication from the OSD (which might be fine?), I >> spent some time looking at how the other callback is handled. As best >> I can tell, the osdc's "r_callback" is used, from the caller's >> perspective (drivers/block/rbd.c and fs/ceph/*), to indicate that a >> write is permanent and it can forget the data/unlock the pages/etc ? >> this matches what the userspace clients do with a "safe" response. >> However, in looking at the handle_reply() function, it sure looks to >> me as if r_callback() is invoked on the first reply from an OSD ? >> which can in many cases be an "unsafe" reply meaning that the data >> hasn't been persisted yet! The only reference I can find to it seeing >> if the reply is a safe or unsafe reply happens during duplicate >> response checking, on the second (or subsequent) responses. >> >> Am I missing something here, or is the kernel client broken under OSD >> failures? (I note that these issues aren't going to turn up when the >> OSDs are running xfs/ext4 because on those FSes the first reply will >> always be the "safe" response, which explains why we haven't detected >> them if there are no other reasons.) >> -Greg >> >> > > > On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 6:17 AM, Yan, Zheng <zheng.z.yan@intel.com> wrote: >> From: "Yan, Zheng" <zheng.z.yan@intel.com> >> >> complete_request() is never called if the first OSD replay doesn't >> have ONDISK flag. >> >> Signed-off-by: Yan, Zheng <zheng.z.yan@intel.com> >> --- >> include/linux/ceph/osd_client.h | 1 - >> net/ceph/osd_client.c | 16 ++++++++-------- >> 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/include/linux/ceph/osd_client.h b/include/linux/ceph/osd_client.h >> index 4191cd2..70f79fb 100644 >> --- a/include/linux/ceph/osd_client.h >> +++ b/include/linux/ceph/osd_client.h >> @@ -145,7 +145,6 @@ struct ceph_osd_request { >> s32 r_reply_op_result[CEPH_OSD_MAX_OP]; >> int r_got_reply; >> int r_linger; >> - int r_completed; >> >> struct ceph_osd_client *r_osdc; >> struct kref r_kref; >> diff --git a/net/ceph/osd_client.c b/net/ceph/osd_client.c >> index 57d8db5..8a5fc37 100644 >> --- a/net/ceph/osd_client.c >> +++ b/net/ceph/osd_client.c >> @@ -1522,6 +1522,8 @@ static void handle_reply(struct ceph_osd_client *osdc, struct ceph_msg *msg, >> for (i = 0; i < numops; i++) >> req->r_reply_op_result[i] = ceph_decode_32(&p); >> >> + already_completed = req->r_got_reply; >> + >> if (!req->r_got_reply) { >> >> req->r_result = result; >> @@ -1552,16 +1554,14 @@ static void handle_reply(struct ceph_osd_client *osdc, struct ceph_msg *msg, >> ((flags & CEPH_OSD_FLAG_WRITE) == 0)) >> __unregister_request(osdc, req); >> >> - already_completed = req->r_completed; >> - req->r_completed = 1; >> mutex_unlock(&osdc->request_mutex); >> - if (already_completed) >> - goto done; >> >> - if (req->r_callback) >> - req->r_callback(req, msg); >> - else >> - complete_all(&req->r_completion); >> + if (!already_completed) { >> + if (req->r_callback) >> + req->r_callback(req, msg); >> + else >> + complete_all(&req->r_completion); >> + } >> >> if (flags & CEPH_OSD_FLAG_ONDISK) >> complete_request(req); >> -- >> 1.8.1.4 >> >> -- >> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in >> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2013-05-01 10:13 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2013-04-30 13:17 [PATCH] libceph: fix "safe" completion Yan, Zheng 2013-04-30 17:04 ` Gregory Farnum 2013-05-01 10:13 ` Yan, Zheng
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.