From: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
To: Xiubo Li <xiubli@redhat.com>, ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: idryomov@gmail.com, vshankar@redhat.com, mchangir@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] libceph: just wait for more data to be available on the socket
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2024 06:09:56 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <f0c7ec2741851ff71e77f2e7598c0de665cce4ac.camel@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ede93dec-3faf-48d1-859e-5edf4323fd15@redhat.com>
On Fri, 2024-01-19 at 12:35 +0800, Xiubo Li wrote:
> On 1/19/24 02:24, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > On Thu, 2024-01-18 at 18:50 +0800, xiubli@redhat.com wrote:
> > > From: Xiubo Li <xiubli@redhat.com>
> > >
> > > The messages from ceph maybe split into multiple socket packages
> > > and we just need to wait for all the data to be availiable on the
> > > sokcet.
> > >
> > > This will add 'sr_total_resid' to record the total length for all
> > > data items for sparse-read message and 'sr_resid_elen' to record
> > > the current extent total length.
> > >
> > > URL: https://tracker.ceph.com/issues/63586
> > > Signed-off-by: Xiubo Li <xiubli@redhat.com>
> > > ---
> > > include/linux/ceph/messenger.h | 1 +
> > > net/ceph/messenger_v1.c | 32 +++++++++++++++++++++-----------
> > > 2 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/ceph/messenger.h b/include/linux/ceph/messenger.h
> > > index 2eaaabbe98cb..ca6f82abed62 100644
> > > --- a/include/linux/ceph/messenger.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/ceph/messenger.h
> > > @@ -231,6 +231,7 @@ struct ceph_msg_data {
> > >
> > > struct ceph_msg_data_cursor {
> > > size_t total_resid; /* across all data items */
> > > + size_t sr_total_resid; /* across all data items for sparse-read */
> > >
> > > struct ceph_msg_data *data; /* current data item */
> > > size_t resid; /* bytes not yet consumed */
> > > diff --git a/net/ceph/messenger_v1.c b/net/ceph/messenger_v1.c
> > > index 4cb60bacf5f5..2733da891688 100644
> > > --- a/net/ceph/messenger_v1.c
> > > +++ b/net/ceph/messenger_v1.c
> > > @@ -160,7 +160,9 @@ static size_t sizeof_footer(struct ceph_connection *con)
> > > static void prepare_message_data(struct ceph_msg *msg, u32 data_len)
> > > {
> > > /* Initialize data cursor if it's not a sparse read */
> > > - if (!msg->sparse_read)
> > > + if (msg->sparse_read)
> > > + msg->cursor.sr_total_resid = data_len;
> > > + else
> > > ceph_msg_data_cursor_init(&msg->cursor, msg, data_len);
> > > }
> > >
> > > @@ -1032,35 +1034,43 @@ static int read_partial_sparse_msg_data(struct ceph_connection *con)
> > > bool do_datacrc = !ceph_test_opt(from_msgr(con->msgr), NOCRC);
> > > u32 crc = 0;
> > > int ret = 1;
> > > + int len;
> > >
> > > if (do_datacrc)
> > > crc = con->in_data_crc;
> > >
> > > - do {
> > > - if (con->v1.in_sr_kvec.iov_base)
> > > + while (cursor->sr_total_resid) {
> > > + len = 0;
> > > + if (con->v1.in_sr_kvec.iov_base) {
> > > + len = con->v1.in_sr_kvec.iov_len;
> > > ret = read_partial_message_chunk(con,
> > > &con->v1.in_sr_kvec,
> > > con->v1.in_sr_len,
> > > &crc);
> > > - else if (cursor->sr_resid > 0)
> > > + len = con->v1.in_sr_kvec.iov_len - len;
> > > + } else if (cursor->sr_resid > 0) {
> > > + len = cursor->sr_resid;
> > > ret = read_partial_sparse_msg_extent(con, &crc);
> > > -
> > > - if (ret <= 0) {
> > > - if (do_datacrc)
> > > - con->in_data_crc = crc;
> > > - return ret;
> > > + len -= cursor->sr_resid;
> > > }
> > > + cursor->sr_total_resid -= len;
> > > + if (ret <= 0)
> > > + break;
> > >
> > > memset(&con->v1.in_sr_kvec, 0, sizeof(con->v1.in_sr_kvec));
> > > ret = con->ops->sparse_read(con, cursor,
> > > (char **)&con->v1.in_sr_kvec.iov_base);
> > > + if (ret <= 0) {
> > > + ret = ret ? : 1; /* must return > 0 to indicate success */
> > > + break;
> > > + }
> > > con->v1.in_sr_len = ret;
> > > - } while (ret > 0);
> > > + }
> > >
> > > if (do_datacrc)
> > > con->in_data_crc = crc;
> > >
> > > - return ret < 0 ? ret : 1; /* must return > 0 to indicate success */
> > > + return ret;
> > > }
> > >
> > > static int read_partial_msg_data(struct ceph_connection *con)
> > Looking back over this code...
> >
> > The way it works today, once we determine it's a sparse read, we call
> > read_sparse_msg_data. At that point we call either
> > read_partial_message_chunk (to read into the kvec) or
> > read_sparse_msg_extent if sr_resid is already set (indicating that we're
> > receiving an extent).
> >
> > read_sparse_msg_extent calls ceph_tcp_recvpage in a loop until
> > cursor->sr_resid have been received. The exception there when
> > ceph_tcp_recvpage returns <= 0.
> >
> > ceph_tcp_recvpage returns 0 if sock_recvmsg returns -EAGAIN (maybe also
> > in other cases). So it sounds like the client just timed out on a read
> > from the socket or caught a signal or something?
> >
> > If that's correct, then do we know what ceph_tcp_recvpage returned when
> > the problem happened?
>
> It should just return parital data, and we should continue from here in
> the next loop when the reset data comes.
>
Tracking this extra length seems like the wrong fix. We're already
looping in read_sparse_msg_extent until the sr_resid goes to 0. ISTM
that it's just that read_sparse_msg_extent is returning inappropriately
in the face of timeouts.
IOW, it does this:
ret = ceph_tcp_recvpage(con->sock, rpage, (int)off, len);
if (ret <= 0)
return ret;
...should it just not be returning there when ret == 0? Maybe it should
be retrying the recvpage instead?
--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-01-19 11:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-01-18 10:50 [PATCH v4 0/3] libceph: fix sparse-read failure bug xiubli
2024-01-18 10:50 ` [PATCH v4 1/3] libceph: fail the sparse-read if there still has data in socket xiubli
2024-01-18 14:03 ` Jeff Layton
2024-01-19 4:07 ` Xiubo Li
2024-01-19 11:03 ` Jeff Layton
2024-01-22 3:17 ` Xiubo Li
2024-01-18 10:50 ` [PATCH v4 2/3] libceph: rename read_sparse_msg_XX to read_partial_sparse_msg_XX xiubli
2024-01-18 14:04 ` Jeff Layton
2024-01-18 10:50 ` [PATCH v4 3/3] libceph: just wait for more data to be available on the socket xiubli
2024-01-18 14:36 ` Jeff Layton
2024-01-18 18:24 ` Jeff Layton
2024-01-19 4:35 ` Xiubo Li
2024-01-19 11:09 ` Jeff Layton [this message]
2024-01-22 2:52 ` Xiubo Li
2024-01-22 11:44 ` Jeff Layton
2024-01-22 15:02 ` Jeff Layton
2024-01-22 16:55 ` Ilya Dryomov
2024-01-22 17:14 ` Jeff Layton
2024-01-22 19:41 ` Ilya Dryomov
2024-01-23 0:53 ` Xiubo Li
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=f0c7ec2741851ff71e77f2e7598c0de665cce4ac.camel@kernel.org \
--to=jlayton@kernel.org \
--cc=ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=idryomov@gmail.com \
--cc=mchangir@redhat.com \
--cc=vshankar@redhat.com \
--cc=xiubli@redhat.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