Re: cosd multi-second stalls cause "wrongly marked me down"

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Sage Weil wrote:
On Thu, 31 Mar 2011, Jim Schutt wrote:
Jim Schutt wrote:
Sage Weil wrote:
On Thu, 31 Mar 2011, Jim Schutt wrote:
I was actually suggesting we try to make it core dump inside the
"delete
this" and watching for a stall in progress and then sending SIGABRT to
dump
core in the act.  That way we verify it really is in the allocator
(and
maybe even see where). That's a bit harder to set up, though!
Right, I couldn't think of how to automate that stall detection
during the stall, rather than after.  At least, I couldn't
think of how to do it without incurring possibly excessive
overhead, say by starting a timer on every "delete this".
Yeah.  I wonder if dumping core on a cosd right when it gets marked down
would do the trick?  That should catch it ~20 seconds or whatever in the
stall.  By watching for the "osdfoo marked down" messages from ceph -w?
What about making Cond::Wait() use pthread_cond_timedwait()
with a suitable timeout value, say 10 seconds, and asserting
on timeout?  Do you think there would be many legitimate 10
second delays in OSD processing?

Or, I could make a Cond::WaitIntervalOrAbort(), and
use it just on the pipe lock, since that's the source
of the trouble.  Sound useful?

Yeah that sounds like the way to go.. then you can hand pick the site(s) that is/are waiting a long time in this case and switch those to WaitIntervalOrAbort? Hopefully the cond timer will go off despite whatever badness is going on in delete this...

Actually, it occurs to me Wait() isn't what I'm after:
that is used to wait some unknown time for some event.

I think instead I need to use TryLock() on the pipe_lock
in submit_message(), in a loop with a suitable sleep,
say 100us, and assert when it takes too long to acquire
the lock.

So, maybe add a Mutex::LockOrAbort(), and use it in
submit_message()?

submit_message() is intended to return immediately, no?
And the issue is caused by heartbeat() being unable to
queue messages, so this sounds to me to be a useful
test.

Does that seem to have low enough overhead to
be useful?

-- Jim


sage



--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


[Index of Archives]     [CEPH Users]     [Ceph Large]     [Information on CEPH]     [Linux BTRFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]
  Powered by Linux