From: bfields@fieldses.org (J. Bruce Fields)
To: Trond Myklebust <trondmy@gmail.com>
Cc: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@redhat.com>, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Handling NFSv3 I/O errors in knfsd
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2019 16:51:56 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190826205156.GA27834@fieldses.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190826165021.81075-1-trond.myklebust@hammerspace.com>
On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 12:50:18PM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> Recently, a number of changes went into the kernel to try to ensure
> that I/O errors (specifically write errors) are reported to the
> application once and only once. The vehicle for ensuring the errors
> are reported is the struct file, which uses the 'f_wb_err' field to
> track which errors have been reported.
>
> The problem is that errors are mainly intended to be reported through
> fsync(). If the client is doing synchronous writes, then all is well,
> but if it is doing unstable writes, then the errors may not be
> reported until the client calls COMMIT. If the file cache has
> thrown out the struct file, due to memory pressure, or just because
> the client took a long while between the last WRITE and the COMMIT,
> then the error report may be lost, and the client may just think
> its data is safely stored.
These were lost before the file caching patches as well, right? Or is
there some regression?
> Note that the problem is compounded by the fact that NFSv3 is stateless,
> so the server never knows that the client may have rebooted, so there
> can be no guarantee that a COMMIT will ever be sent.
>
> The following patch set attempts to remedy the situation using 2
> strategies:
>
> 1) If the inode is dirty, then avoid garbage collecting the file
> from the file cache.
> 2) If the file is closed, and we see that it would have reported
> an error to COMMIT, then we bump the boot verifier in order to
> ensure the client retransmits all its writes.
Sounds sensible to me.
> Note that if multiple clients were writing to the same file, then
> we probably want to bump the boot verifier anyway, since only one
> COMMIT will see the error report (because the cached file is also
> shared).
I'm confused by the "probably should". So that's future work? I guess
it'd mean some additional work to identify that case. You can't really
even distinguish clients in the NFSv3 case, but I suppose you could use
IP address or TCP connection as an approximation.
--b.
> So in order to implement the above strategy, we first have to do
> the following: split up the file cache to act per net namespace,
> since the boot verifier is per net namespace. Then add a helper
> to update the boot verifier.
>
> Trond Myklebust (3):
> nfsd: nfsd_file cache entries should be per net namespace
> nfsd: Support the server resetting the boot verifier
> nfsd: Don't garbage collect files that might contain write errors
>
> fs/nfsd/export.c | 2 +-
> fs/nfsd/filecache.c | 76 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
> fs/nfsd/filecache.h | 3 +-
> fs/nfsd/netns.h | 4 +++
> fs/nfsd/nfs3xdr.c | 13 +++++---
> fs/nfsd/nfs4proc.c | 14 +++------
> fs/nfsd/nfsctl.c | 1 +
> fs/nfsd/nfssvc.c | 32 ++++++++++++++++++-
> 8 files changed, 115 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
>
> --
> 2.21.0
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-08-26 20:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-08-26 16:50 [PATCH 0/3] Handling NFSv3 I/O errors in knfsd Trond Myklebust
2019-08-26 16:50 ` [PATCH 1/3] nfsd: nfsd_file cache entries should be per net namespace Trond Myklebust
2019-08-26 16:50 ` [PATCH 2/3] nfsd: Support the server resetting the boot verifier Trond Myklebust
2019-08-26 16:50 ` [PATCH 3/3] nfsd: Don't garbage collect files that might contain write errors Trond Myklebust
2019-08-27 7:58 ` [PATCH 2/3] nfsd: Support the server resetting the boot verifier kbuild test robot
2019-08-26 20:51 ` J. Bruce Fields [this message]
2019-08-26 21:02 ` [PATCH 0/3] Handling NFSv3 I/O errors in knfsd Trond Myklebust
2019-08-27 0:48 ` bfields
2019-08-27 0:56 ` Trond Myklebust
2019-08-27 1:13 ` bfields
2019-08-27 1:28 ` Trond Myklebust
2019-08-27 13:59 ` Chuck Lever
2019-08-27 14:53 ` Trond Myklebust
2019-08-27 14:58 ` bfields
2019-08-27 14:59 ` bfields
2019-08-27 15:15 ` Trond Myklebust
2019-08-27 15:20 ` Chuck Lever
2019-08-28 13:48 ` bfields
2019-08-28 13:51 ` Jeff Layton
2019-08-28 13:57 ` Chuck Lever
2019-08-28 14:00 ` J. Bruce Fields
2019-08-28 14:03 ` Chuck Lever
2019-08-28 14:16 ` Jeff Layton
2019-08-28 14:21 ` Chuck Lever
2019-08-28 14:40 ` J. Bruce Fields
2019-08-28 14:48 ` Bruce Fields
2019-08-28 14:50 ` Chuck Lever
2019-08-28 17:07 ` Bruce Fields
2019-08-28 15:09 ` Jeff Layton
2019-08-28 15:12 ` Rick Macklem
2019-08-28 15:37 ` Trond Myklebust
2019-08-28 15:46 ` Bruce Fields
2019-08-27 14:54 ` Bruce Fields
2019-08-27 14:59 ` Trond Myklebust
2019-08-27 15:00 ` bfields
2019-08-27 15:17 ` 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=20190826205156.GA27834@fieldses.org \
--to=bfields@fieldses.org \
--cc=bfields@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=trondmy@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