Re: still seeing single client NFS4ERR_DELAY / CB_RECALL

[Bruce Fields <bfields@fieldses.org>]

On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 05:26:26PM -0400, Chuck Lever wrote:
> 
> > On Aug 17, 2020, at 6:20 PM, Bruce Fields <bfields@fieldses.org> wrote:
> > 
> > On Sun, Aug 16, 2020 at 04:46:00PM -0400, Chuck Lever wrote:
> > 
> >> In order of application:
> >> 
> >> 5920afa3c85f ("nfsd: hook nfsd_commit up to the nfsd_file cache")
> >> 961.68user 5252.40system 20:12.30elapsed 512%CPU, 2541 DELAY errors
> >> These results are similar to v5.3.
> >> 
> >> fd4f83fd7dfb ("nfsd: convert nfs4_file->fi_fds array to use nfsd_files")
> >> Does not build
> >> 
> >> eb82dd393744 ("nfsd: convert fi_deleg_file and ls_file fields to nfsd_file")
> >> 966.92user 5425.47system 33:52.79elapsed 314%CPU, 1330 DELAY errors
> >> 
> >> Can you take a look and see if there's anything obvious?
> > 
> > Unfortunately nothing about the file cache code is very obvious to me.
> > I'm looking at it....
> > 
> > It adds some new nfserr_jukebox returns in nfsd_file_acquire.  Those
> > mostly look like kmalloc failures, the one I'm not sure about is the
> > NFSD_FILE_HASHED check.
> > 
> > Or maybe it's the lease break there.
> 
> nfsd_file_acquire() always calls fh_verify() before it invokes nfsd_open().
> Replacing nfs4_get_vfs_file's nfsd_open() call with nfsd_file_acquire() adds
> almost 10 million fh_verify() calls to my test run.
> 
> On my server, fh_verify() is quite expensive. Most of the cost is in the
> prepare_creds() call.

Huh, interesting.

So you no longer think there's a difference in NFS4ERR_DELAY returns
before and after?


--b.