From: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
To: "Yan, Zheng" <ukernel@gmail.com>, Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@gmail.com>
Cc: 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: Tue, 29 Sep 2020 15:50:25 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5ba09f6b5493457341aaa273a3d3bddb155a37b4.camel@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAAM7YA=bo-pdnLuxFAyChtZCoP6VZ3oUJEX_+Sn5r6i6bO_+8Q@mail.gmail.com>
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.
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>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-09-29 19:50 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 [this message]
2020-09-30 8:45 ` Yan, Zheng
2020-09-30 17:55 ` Jeff Layton
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=5ba09f6b5493457341aaa273a3d3bddb155a37b4.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