Re: [nfs-utils RFC PATCH 2/2] gssd: add timeout for upcall threads

[Steve Dickson <steved@redhat.com>]

Hey!

Sorry for the delay... Red Hat just rejiggered my
entire email world... fun fun! ;-)

On 5/27/21 12:47 PM, Olga Kornievskaia wrote:
> On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 8:52 AM Steve Dickson <SteveD@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 5/27/21 7:40 AM, Scott Mayhew wrote:
>>> On Wed, 26 May 2021, Steve Dickson wrote:
>>>> If people are going to used the -C flag they are saying they want
>>>> to ignore hung threads so I'm thinking with printerr(0) we would
>>>> be filling up their logs about messages they don't care about.
>>>> So I'm thinking we should change this to a printerr(1)
>>>
>>> Note that message could pop multiple times per thread even without the
>>> -C flag because cancellation isn't immediate (a thread needs to hit a
>>> cancellation point, which it won't actually do that until it comes back
>>> from wherever it's hanging).  My thinking was leaving it with
>>> printerr(0) would make it blatantly obvious when something was wrong and
>>> needed to be investigated.  I have no issue with changing it to
>>> printerr(1) though.
>> It would... but I've craft the debugging for a single -v
>> is errors only... Maybe I should mention that in the
>> man page... And looking at what you mention in the
>> man page for -C, it does say it will cause an error
>> to be logged... So I guess it makes sense to leave
>> it as is.
>>
>>>
>>> Alternatively we could add another flag to struct upcall_thread_info to
>>> ensure that message only gets logged once per thread.
>>>
>> I think it is good as is...
>>
>>>>
>>>> Overall I think the code is very well written with
>>>> one exception... The lack of comments. I think it
>>>> would be very useful to let the reader know what
>>>> you are doing and why.... But by no means is
>>>> that a show stopper. Nice work!
>>>
>>> I can go back and add some comments.
>> Well there aren't that many comments to
>> begin with.... So you are just following
>> the format... ;-)
>>
>> Don't worry about it... How I will finish my testing
>> today... and do the commit with what we got..
> 
> Hi Steve,
> 
> Can you please provide a bit more time for review to happen?
Fair enough... Scott a V3 version on last Thur.

> 
>> Again... Nice work!!
> 
> Yes, nice work. But, I object to the current code that sets canceling
> threads as default. This way the code hides the problems that occur
> instead of forcing people to fix them.
Scott correct me if I'm wrong...

If the upcall is canceled (which is the default) the
upcall is failed causing the mount to fail and
a message is logged.

If the upcall is not canceled (using the -C flag)
the upcall continues to hang, but only on message
is logged about the hang... and the mount will
continue to hang.

See 'scan_active_thread_list()' the 'case EBUSY:' case.

So in both cases a the problem will be logged.

steved.