Re: nfsd blocks indefinitely in nfsd4_destroy_session

[Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>]

On 1/8/25 9:54 AM, Christian Herzog wrote:
> Dear Chuck,
> 
> On Wed, Jan 08, 2025 at 08:33:23AM -0500, Chuck Lever wrote:
>> On 1/7/25 4:17 PM, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:
>>> Hi Chuck,
>>>
>>> Thanks for your time on this, much appreciated.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 01, 2025 at 02:24:50PM -0500, Chuck Lever wrote:
>>>> On 12/25/24 4:15 AM, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:
>>>>> Hi Chuck, hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>> [it was not ideal to pick one of the message for this followup, let me
>>>>> know if you want a complete new thread, adding as well Benjamin and
>>>>> Trond as they are involved in one mentioned patch]
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 02:31:54PM +0000, Chuck Lever III wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Jun 17, 2024, at 2:55 AM, Harald Dunkel <harald.dunkel@aixigo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi folks,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> what would be the reason for nfsd getting stuck somehow and becoming
>>>>>>> an unkillable process? See
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1071562
>>>>>>> - https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/nfs-utils/+bug/2062568
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Doesn't this mean that something inside the kernel gets stuck as
>>>>>>> well? Seems odd to me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not familiar with the Debian or Ubuntu kernel packages. Can
>>>>>> the kernel release numbers be translated to LTS kernel releases
>>>>>> please? Need both "last known working" and "first broken" releases.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [ 6596.911785] RPC: Could not send backchannel reply error: -110
>>>>>> [ 6596.972490] RPC: Could not send backchannel reply error: -110
>>>>>> [ 6837.281307] RPC: Could not send backchannel reply error: -110
>>>>>>
>>>>>> is a known set of client backchannel bugs. Knowing the LTS kernel
>>>>>> releases (see above) will help us figure out what needs to be
>>>>>> backported to the LTS kernels kernels in question.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [11183.290619] wait_for_completion+0x88/0x150
>>>>>> [11183.290623] __flush_workqueue+0x140/0x3e0
>>>>>> [11183.290629] nfsd4_probe_callback_sync+0x1a/0x30 [nfsd]
>>>>>> [11183.290689] nfsd4_destroy_session+0x186/0x260 [nfsd]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> is probably related to the backchannel errors on the client, but
>>>>>> client bugs shouldn't cause the server to hang like this. We
>>>>>> might be able to say more if you can provide the kernel release
>>>>>> translations (see above).
>>>>>
>>>>> In Debian we hstill have the bug #1071562 open and one person notified
>>>>> mye offlist that it appears that the issue get more frequent since
>>>>> they updated on NFS client side from Ubuntu 20.04 to Debian bookworm
>>>>> with a 6.1.y based kernel).
>>>>>
>>>>> Some people around those issues, seem to claim that the change
>>>>> mentioned in
>>>>> https://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/2024-July/064614.html
>>>>> would fix the issue, which is as well backchannel related.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is upstream: 6ddc9deacc13 ("SUNRPC: Fix backchannel reply,
>>>>> again"). While this commit fixes 57331a59ac0d ("NFSv4.1: Use the
>>>>> nfs_client's rpc timeouts for backchannel") this is not something
>>>>> which goes back to 6.1.y, could it be possible that hte backchannel
>>>>> refactoring and this final fix indeeds fixes the issue?
>>>>>
>>>>> As people report it is not easily reproducible, so this makes it
>>>>> harder to identify fixes correctly.
>>>>>
>>>>> I gave a (short) stance on trying to backport commits up to
>>>>> 6ddc9deacc13 ("SUNRPC: Fix backchannel reply, again") but this quickly
>>>>> seems to indicate it is probably still not the right thing for
>>>>> backporting to the older stable series.
>>>>>
>>>>> As at least pre-requisites:
>>>>>
>>>>> 2009e32997ed568a305cf9bc7bf27d22e0f6ccda
>>>>> 4119bd0306652776cb0b7caa3aea5b2a93aecb89
>>>>> 163cdfca341b76c958567ae0966bd3575c5c6192
>>>>> f4afc8fead386c81fda2593ad6162271d26667f8
>>>>> 6ed8cdf967f7e9fc96cd1c129719ef99db2f9afc
>>>>> 57331a59ac0d680f606403eb24edd3c35aecba31
>>>>>
>>>>> and still there would be conflicting codepaths (and does not seem
>>>>> right).
>>>>>
>>>>> Chuck, Benjamin, Trond, is there anything we can provive on reporters
>>>>> side that we can try to tackle this issue better?
>>>>
>>>> As I've indicated before, NFSD should not block no matter what the
>>>> client may or may not be doing. I'd like to focus on the server first.
>>>>
>>>> What is the result of:
>>>>
>>>> $ cd <Bookworm's v6.1.90 kernel source >
>>>> $ unset KBUILD_OUTPUT
>>>> $ make -j `nproc`
>>>> $ scripts/faddr2line \
>>>> 	fs/nfsd/nfs4state.o \
>>>> 	nfsd4_destroy_session+0x16d
>>>>
>>>> Since this issue appeared after v6.1.1, is it possible to bisect
>>>> between v6.1.1 and v6.1.90 ?
>>>
>>> First please note, at least speaking of triggering the issue in
>>> Debian, Debian has moved to 6.1.119 based kernel already (and soon in
>>> the weekends point release move to 6.1.123).
>>>
>>> That said, one of the users which regularly seems to be hit by the
>>> issue was able to provide the above requested information, based for
>>> 6.1.119:
>>>
>>> ~/kernel/linux-source-6.1# make kernelversion
>>> 6.1.119
>>> ~/kernel/linux-source-6.1# scripts/faddr2line fs/nfsd/nfs4state.o nfsd4_destroy_session+0x16d
>>> nfsd4_destroy_session+0x16d/0x250:
>>> __list_del_entry at /root/kernel/linux-source-6.1/./include/linux/list.h:134
>>> (inlined by) list_del at /root/kernel/linux-source-6.1/./include/linux/list.h:148
>>> (inlined by) unhash_session at /root/kernel/linux-source-6.1/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c:2062
>>> (inlined by) nfsd4_destroy_session at /root/kernel/linux-source-6.1/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c:3856
>>>
>>> They could provide as well a decode_stacktrace output for the recent
>>> hit (if that is helpful for you):
>>>
>>> [Mon Jan 6 13:25:28 2025] INFO: task nfsd:55306 blocked for more than 6883 seconds.
>>> [Mon Jan 6 13:25:28 2025]       Not tainted 6.1.0-28-amd64 #1 Debian 6.1.119-1
>>> [Mon Jan 6 13:25:28 2025] "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this message.
>>> [Mon Jan 6 13:25:28 2025] task:nfsd            state:D stack:0     pid:55306 ppid:2      flags:0x00004000
>>> [Mon Jan 6 13:25:28 2025] Call Trace:
>>> [Mon Jan 6 13:25:28 2025]  <TASK>
>>> [Mon Jan 6 13:25:28 2025] __schedule+0x34d/0x9e0
>>> [Mon Jan 6 13:25:28 2025] schedule+0x5a/0xd0
>>> [Mon Jan 6 13:25:28 2025] schedule_timeout+0x118/0x150
>>> [Mon Jan 6 13:25:28 2025] wait_for_completion+0x86/0x160
>>> [Mon Jan 6 13:25:28 2025] __flush_workqueue+0x152/0x420
>>> [Mon Jan 6 13:25:28 2025] nfsd4_destroy_session (debian/build/build_amd64_none_amd64/include/linux/spinlock.h:351 debian/build/build_amd64_none_amd64/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c:3861) nfsd
>>> [Mon Jan 6 13:25:28 2025] nfsd4_proc_compound (debian/build/build_amd64_none_amd64/fs/nfsd/nfs4proc.c:2680) nfsd
>>> [Mon Jan 6 13:25:28 2025] nfsd_dispatch (debian/build/build_amd64_none_amd64/fs/nfsd/nfssvc.c:1022) nfsd
>>> [Mon Jan 6 13:25:28 2025] svc_process_common (debian/build/build_amd64_none_amd64/net/sunrpc/svc.c:1344) sunrpc
>>> [Mon Jan 6 13:25:28 2025] ? svc_recv (debian/build/build_amd64_none_amd64/net/sunrpc/svc_xprt.c:897) sunrpc
>>> [Mon Jan 6 13:25:28 2025] ? nfsd_svc (debian/build/build_amd64_none_amd64/fs/nfsd/nfssvc.c:983) nfsd
>>> [Mon Jan 6 13:25:28 2025] ? nfsd_inet6addr_event (debian/build/build_amd64_none_amd64/fs/nfsd/nfssvc.c:922) nfsd
>>> [Mon Jan 6 13:25:28 2025] svc_process (debian/build/build_amd64_none_amd64/net/sunrpc/svc.c:1474) sunrpc
>>> [Mon Jan 6 13:25:28 2025] nfsd (debian/build/build_amd64_none_amd64/fs/nfsd/nfssvc.c:960) nfsd
>>> [Mon Jan 6 13:25:28 2025] kthread+0xd7/0x100
>>> [Mon Jan 6 13:25:28 2025] ? kthread_complete_and_exit+0x20/0x20
>>> [Mon Jan 6 13:25:28 2025] ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30
>>> [Mon Jan  6 13:25:28 2025]  </TASK>
>>>
>>> The question about bisection is actually harder, those are production
>>> systems and I understand it's not possible to do bisect there, while
>>> unfortunately not reprodcing the issue on "lab conditions".
>>>
>>> Does the above give us still a clue on what you were looking for?
>>
>> Thanks for the update.
>>
>> It's possible that 38f080f3cd19 ("NFSD: Move callback_wq into struct
>> nfs4_client"), while not a specific fix for this issue, might offer some
>> relief by preventing the DESTROY_SESSION hang from affecting all other
>> clients of the degraded server.
>>
>> Not having a reproducer or the ability to bisect puts a damper on
>> things. The next step, then, is to enable tracing on servers where this
>> issue can come up, and wait for the hang to occur. The following command
>> captures information only about callback operation, so it should not
>> generate much data or impact server performance.
>>
>>    # trace-cmd record -e nfsd:nfsd_cb\*
>>
>> Let that run until the problem occurs, then ^C, compress the resulting
>> trace.dat file, and either attach it to 1071562 or email it to me
>> privately.
> thanks for the follow-up.
> 
> I am the "customer" with two affected file servers. We have since moved those
> servers to the backports kernel (6.11.10) in the hope of forward fixing the
> issue. If this kernel is stable, I'm afraid I can't go back to the 'bad'
> kernel (700+ researchers affected..), and we're also not able to trigger the
> issue on our test environment.

Hello Dr. Herzog -

If the problem recurs on 6.11, the trace-cmd I suggest above works
there as well.

If not, there are several "me too!" reports in the bug. Anyone who hits
this issue can try the trace-cmd and report back.


-- 
Chuck Lever