From: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
To: "Yan, Zheng" <ukernel@gmail.com>
Cc: Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@gmail.com>,
ceph-devel <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>,
Patrick Donnelly <pdonnell@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] ceph: fix spurious recover_session=clean errors
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2020 13:55:00 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3723969aaff3f3f66b3b3e9ea8b6e1c5aab5e429.camel@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAAM7YAnjtrQAfv9mYpAZev=VRMvgUXtX8Ausa4NAeZpcUbO+LQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, 2020-09-30 at 16:45 +0800, Yan, Zheng wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 3:50 AM Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2020-09-29 at 18:44 +0800, Yan, Zheng wrote:
> > > On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 4:55 PM Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 10:28 AM Yan, Zheng <ukernel@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 10:08 PM Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > > > > Ilya noticed that he would get spurious EACCES errors on calls done just
> > > > > > after blocklisting the client on mounts with recover_session=clean. The
> > > > > > session would get marked as REJECTED and that caused in-flight calls to
> > > > > > die with EACCES. This patchset seems to smooth over the problem, but I'm
> > > > > > not fully convinced it's the right approach.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > the root is cause is that client does not recover session instantly
> > > > > after getting rejected by mds. Before session gets recovered, client
> > > > > continues to return error.
> > > >
> > > > Hi Zheng,
> > > >
> > > > I don't think it's about whether that happens instantly or not.
> > > > In the example from [1], the first "ls" would fail even if issued
> > > > minutes after the session reject message and the reconnect. From
> > > > the user's POV it is well after the automatic recovery promised by
> > > > recover_session=clean.
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://tracker.ceph.com/issues/47385
> > >
> > > Reconnect should close all old session. It's likely because that
> > > client didn't detect it's blacklisted.
> > >
> >
> > I should have described this better -- let me explain:
> >
> > It did detect that it was blocklisted (almost immediately) because the
> > MDS shuts down the session. I think it immediately sends a
> > SESSION_REJECT message when blacklisting and indicates that it has been
> > blocklisted.
> >
> > At that point the session is CEPH_MDS_SESSION_REJECTED. The next MDS
> > calls through would see that it was in that state and would return
> > -EACCES. Eventually, the delayed work runs and then the session gets
> > reconnected, and further calls proceed normally.
> >
> > So, I think this is just a timing thing for the most part. The workqueue
> > job runs on a delay of round_jiffies_relative(HZ * 5);, and that's long
> > enough for the disruption to be noticeable.
> >
> > While this was happening during 'ls' for Ilya, it could happen in
> > anything that involves sending a request to the MDS. I think we want to
> > prevent new opens from erroring out during this window if we can.
> >
> > The real question is whether this is safe in all cases. For instance, if
> > the call that we're idling is dependent on holding certain caps, then
> > it's possible we will have lost them when we got REJECTED.
> >
>
> The session in rejected state is new session. It should hold no caps.
>
Right.
We're actually OK here wrt to async requests as they will return
EJUKEBOX and the caller will redrive a synchronous request. Other
MClientRequest calls don't require that the client hold any caps,
AFAICT, so idling them until we can establish a new session should be
OK, no?
> > Hmm...so that means patch 4/4 is probably wrong. I'll comment further in
> > a reply to that patch.
> >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Ilya
> > > >
> > > > > > The potential issue I see is that the client could take cap references to
> > > > > > do a call on a session that has been blocklisted. We then queue the
> > > > > > message and reestablish the session, but we may not have been granted
> > > > > > the same caps by the MDS at that point.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If this is a problem, then we probably need to rework it so that we
> > > > > > return a distinct error code in this situation and have the upper layers
> > > > > > issue a completely new mds request (with new cap refs, etc.)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Obviously, that's a much more invasive approach though, so it would be
> > > > > > nice to avoid that if this would suffice.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jeff Layton (4):
> > > > > > ceph: don't WARN when removing caps due to blocklisting
> > > > > > ceph: don't mark mount as SHUTDOWN when recovering session
> > > > > > ceph: remove timeout on allowing reconnect after blocklisting
> > > > > > ceph: queue request when CLEANRECOVER is set
> > > > > >
> > > > > > fs/ceph/caps.c | 2 +-
> > > > > > fs/ceph/mds_client.c | 10 ++++------
> > > > > > fs/ceph/super.c | 13 +++++++++----
> > > > > > fs/ceph/super.h | 1 -
> > > > > > 4 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > 2.26.2
> > > > > >
> >
> > --
> > Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
> >
--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-09-30 17:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-09-25 14:08 [RFC PATCH 0/4] ceph: fix spurious recover_session=clean errors Jeff Layton
2020-09-25 14:08 ` [RFC PATCH 1/4] ceph: don't WARN when removing caps due to blocklisting Jeff Layton
2020-09-25 14:08 ` [RFC PATCH 2/4] ceph: don't mark mount as SHUTDOWN when recovering session Jeff Layton
2020-09-29 8:20 ` Yan, Zheng
2020-09-29 12:30 ` Jeff Layton
2020-09-25 14:08 ` [RFC PATCH 3/4] ceph: remove timeout on allowing reconnect after blocklisting Jeff Layton
2020-09-25 14:08 ` [RFC PATCH 4/4] ceph: queue request when CLEANRECOVER is set Jeff Layton
2020-09-29 8:31 ` Yan, Zheng
2020-09-29 12:46 ` Jeff Layton
2020-09-29 19:55 ` Jeff Layton
2020-09-29 8:28 ` [RFC PATCH 0/4] ceph: fix spurious recover_session=clean errors Yan, Zheng
2020-09-29 8:54 ` Ilya Dryomov
2020-09-29 10:44 ` Yan, Zheng
2020-09-29 10:58 ` Ilya Dryomov
2020-09-29 12:48 ` Jeff Layton
2020-09-29 19:50 ` Jeff Layton
2020-09-30 8:45 ` Yan, Zheng
2020-09-30 17:55 ` Jeff Layton [this message]
2020-09-30 12:10 ` [RFC PATCH v2 " Jeff Layton
2020-09-30 12:10 ` [RFC PATCH v2 1/4] ceph: don't WARN when removing caps due to blocklisting Jeff Layton
2020-09-30 12:10 ` [RFC PATCH v2 2/4] ceph: don't mark mount as SHUTDOWN when recovering session Jeff Layton
2020-09-30 12:10 ` [RFC PATCH v2 3/4] ceph: remove timeout on allowing reconnect after blocklisting Jeff Layton
2020-09-30 12:10 ` [RFC PATCH v2 4/4] ceph: queue MDS requests to REJECTED sessions when CLEANRECOVER is set Jeff Layton
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=3723969aaff3f3f66b3b3e9ea8b6e1c5aab5e429.camel@kernel.org \
--to=jlayton@kernel.org \
--cc=ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=idryomov@gmail.com \
--cc=pdonnell@redhat.com \
--cc=ukernel@gmail.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox