Re: [PATCH] nfsd: Don't reset the write verifier on a commit EAGAIN

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

On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 01:11:28AM +0000, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> On Tue, 2023-09-12 at 00:45 +0000, Chuck Lever III wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > > On Sep 11, 2023, at 7:42 PM, Trond Myklebust
> > > <trondmy@hammerspace.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > On Mon, 2023-09-11 at 22:10 +0000, Chuck Lever III wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > On Sep 11, 2023, at 4:54 PM, Trond Myklebust
> > > > > <trondmy@hammerspace.com> wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Mon, 2023-09-11 at 16:14 -0400, Chuck Lever wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 02:43:57PM -0400,
> > > > > > trondmy@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > From: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@hammerspace.com>
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > If fsync() is returning EAGAIN, then we can assume that the
> > > > > > > filesystem
> > > > > > > being exported is something like NFS with the 'softerr'
> > > > > > > mount
> > > > > > > option
> > > > > > > enabled, and that it is just asking us to replay the
> > > > > > > fsync()
> > > > > > > operation
> > > > > > > at a later date.
> > > > > > > If we see an ESTALE, then ditto: the file is gone, so there
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > no
> > > > > > > danger
> > > > > > > of losing the error.
> > > > > > > For those cases, do not reset the write verifier.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Out of interest, what's the hazard in a write verifier change
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > these cases? There could be a slight performance penalty, I
> > > > > > imagine,
> > > > > > but how frequently does this happen?
> > > > > 
> > > > > When re-exporting to NFSv4 clients, it should be less of a
> > > > > problem,
> > > > > since any REMOVE will result in a sillyrenamed file that only
> > > > > disappears once the file is closed. However with NFSv3 clients,
> > > > > that is
> > > > > circumvented by the fact that the filecache closes the files
> > > > > when
> > > > > they
> > > > > are inactive. We've seen this occur frequently with VMware
> > > > > vmdks:
> > > > > their
> > > > > lock files appear to generate a lot of these phantom ESTALE
> > > > > writes.
> > > > > 
> > > > > As for EAGAIN, I just pushed out a 2 patch client series that
> > > > > makes
> > > > > it
> > > > > a lot more frequent when re-exporting NFSv4 with 'softerr'.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Finally, it is worth noting that a write verifier change has a
> > > > > global
> > > > > effect, causing retransmission by all clients of all
> > > > > uncommitted
> > > > > unstable writes for all files, so is worth mitigating where
> > > > > possible.
> > > > 
> > > > Good info. I've added some of this to the patch description.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > > One more below.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Trond Myklebust
> > > > > > > <trond.myklebust@hammerspace.com>
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > >  fs/nfsd/vfs.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++++----------
> > > > > > >  1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > diff --git a/fs/nfsd/vfs.c b/fs/nfsd/vfs.c
> > > > > > > index 98fa4fd0556d..31daf9f63572 100644
> > > > > > > --- a/fs/nfsd/vfs.c
> > > > > > > +++ b/fs/nfsd/vfs.c
> > > > > > > @@ -337,6 +337,20 @@ nfsd_lookup(struct svc_rqst *rqstp,
> > > > > > > struct
> > > > > > > svc_fh *fhp, const char *name,
> > > > > > >         return err;
> > > > > > >  }
> > > > > > >  
> > > > > > > +static void
> > > > > > > +commit_reset_write_verifier(struct nfsd_net *nn, struct
> > > > > > > svc_rqst
> > > > > > > *rqstp,
> > > > > > > +                           int err)
> > > > > > > +{
> > > > > > > +       switch (err) {
> > > > > > > +       case -EAGAIN:
> > > > > > > +       case -ESTALE:
> > > > > > > +               break;
> > > > > > > +       default:
> > > > > > > +               nfsd_reset_write_verifier(nn);
> > > > > > > +               trace_nfsd_writeverf_reset(nn, rqstp, err);
> > > > > > > +       }
> > > > > > > +}
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > >  /*
> > > > > > >   * Commit metadata changes to stable storage.
> > > > > > >   */
> > > > > > > @@ -647,8 +661,7 @@ __be32 nfsd4_clone_file_range(struct
> > > > > > > svc_rqst
> > > > > > > *rqstp,
> > > > > > >                                        
> > > > > > > &nfsd4_get_cstate(rqstp)-
> > > > > > > > current_fh,
> > > > > > >                                         dst_pos,
> > > > > > >                                         count, status);
> > > > > > > -                       nfsd_reset_write_verifier(nn);
> > > > > > > -                       trace_nfsd_writeverf_reset(nn,
> > > > > > > rqstp,
> > > > > > > status);
> > > > > > > +                       commit_reset_write_verifier(nn,
> > > > > > > rqstp,
> > > > > > > status);
> > > > > > >                         ret = nfserrno(status);
> > > > > > >                 }
> > > > > > >         }
> > > > > > > @@ -1170,8 +1183,7 @@ nfsd_vfs_write(struct svc_rqst
> > > > > > > *rqstp,
> > > > > > > struct
> > > > > > > svc_fh *fhp, struct nfsd_file *nf,
> > > > > > >         host_err = vfs_iter_write(file, &iter, &pos,
> > > > > > > flags);
> > > > > > >         file_end_write(file);
> > > > > > >         if (host_err < 0) {
> > > > > > > -               nfsd_reset_write_verifier(nn);
> > > > > > > -               trace_nfsd_writeverf_reset(nn, rqstp,
> > > > > > > host_err);
> > > > > > > +               commit_reset_write_verifier(nn, rqstp,
> > > > > > > host_err);
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Can generic_file_write_iter() or its brethren return STALE or
> > > > > > AGAIN
> > > > > > before they get to the generic_write_sync() call ?
> > > > > 
> > > > > The call to nfs_revalidate_file_size(), which can occur when
> > > > > you
> > > > > are
> > > > > appending to the file (whether or not O_APPEND is set) could
> > > > > indeed
> > > > > return ESTALE.
> > > > > With the new patchset mentioned above, it could also return
> > > > > EAGAIN.
> > > > 
> > > > Sounds like I should drop this hunk when applying this fix.
> > > 
> > > I'm not understanding. Why would you not keep it?
> > 
> > generic_file_write_iter() and its brethren are two calls in
> > one, if I'm following this correctly:
> > 
> > 1. write
> > 2. sync
> > 
> > All the other places you change are "sync" only, so it's
> > fairly obvious that those callers get a return code that
> > reflects a failure of "sync".
> > 
> > I asked above if it's possible for the "write" part of
> > generic_file_write_iter() to fail with STALE/AGAIN before the
> > sync part is even called.
> > 
> > You seemed to be answering "yes, the 'write' part can fail
> > that way" but I may have misunderstood your response.
> > 
> > If the "write" step can fail, isn't that something that should
> > be reflected in a write verifier change? If yes, I don't see
> > how this particular call site can distinguish between a "write"
> > failure versus a "sync" failure.
> 
> The point of EAGAIN is that just like NFS4ERR_DELAY, it implies no
> stateful (read "non-idempotent") changes occurred during the operation
> that returned it.
> The call to nfs_revalidate_file_size() will happen before you've
> changed the page cache, so if it fails with EAGAIN, it won't leave the
> file in a state where unrecorded changes happened, nor will it cause
> existing page cache changes to be lost.
> 
> If, OTOH, the nfs_revalidate_file_size() returns ESTALE, then the page
> cache changes indeed will not be recorded, but we don't care because
> the point is that the file is no more.

Thanks. Applied to nfsd-next.


> > Or, if the vfs_iter_write() call here is guaranteed to never
> > be a sync write request, then again, I think we want to reflect
> > all failures here with a write verifier change.
> > 
> > However, if STALE and AGAIN have the exact same semantics
> > for "write" as they do for "sync", those failures can be
> > thrown away too, and I can keep this hunk. Are you saying
> > this is the case?
> > 
> > (this is /only/ for the vfs_iter_write() call site. The others
> > look OK to me).
> > 
> > 
> > > > > > >                 goto out_nfserr;
> > > > > > >         }
> > > > > > >         *cnt = host_err;
> > > > > > > @@ -1183,10 +1195,8 @@ nfsd_vfs_write(struct svc_rqst
> > > > > > > *rqstp,
> > > > > > > struct svc_fh *fhp, struct nfsd_file *nf,
> > > > > > >  
> > > > > > >         if (stable && use_wgather) {
> > > > > > >                 host_err =
> > > > > > > wait_for_concurrent_writes(file);
> > > > > > > -               if (host_err < 0) {
> > > > > > > -                       nfsd_reset_write_verifier(nn);
> > > > > > > -                       trace_nfsd_writeverf_reset(nn,
> > > > > > > rqstp,
> > > > > > > host_err);
> > > > > > > -               }
> > > > > > > +               if (host_err < 0)
> > > > > > > +                       commit_reset_write_verifier(nn,
> > > > > > > rqstp,
> > > > > > > host_err);
> > > > > > >         }
> > > > > > >  
> > > > > > >  out_nfserr:
> > > > > > > @@ -1329,8 +1339,7 @@ nfsd_commit(struct svc_rqst *rqstp,
> > > > > > > struct
> > > > > > > svc_fh *fhp, struct nfsd_file *nf,
> > > > > > >                         err = nfserr_notsupp;
> > > > > > >                         break;
> > > > > > >                 default:
> > > > > > > -                       nfsd_reset_write_verifier(nn);
> > > > > > > -                       trace_nfsd_writeverf_reset(nn,
> > > > > > > rqstp,
> > > > > > > err2);
> > > > > > > +                       commit_reset_write_verifier(nn,
> > > > > > > rqstp,
> > > > > > > err2);
> > > > > > >                         err = nfserrno(err2);
> > > > > > >                 }
> > > > > > >         } else
> > > > > > > -- 
> > > > > > > 2.41.0
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > -- 
> > > > > Trond Myklebust
> > > > > Linux NFS client maintainer, Hammerspace
> > > > > trond.myklebust@hammerspace.com
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > --
> > > > Chuck Lever
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > > Trond Myklebust
> > > Linux NFS client maintainer, Hammerspace
> > > trond.myklebust@hammerspace.com
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > --
> > Chuck Lever
> > 
> > 
> 
> -- 
> Trond Myklebust
> Linux NFS client maintainer, Hammerspace
> trond.myklebust@hammerspace.com
> 
> 

-- 
Chuck Lever