On Fri, 2018-09-21 at 18:05 -0500, Benjamin Marzinski wrote:
> The code previously was timing out mode if ct->thread was 0 but
> ct->running wasn't. This combination never happens. The idea was to
> timeout if for some reason the path checker tried to kill the thread,
> but it didn't die. The correct thing to check for this is ct-
> >holders.
> ct->holders will always be at least one when libcheck_check() is
> called,
> since libcheck_free() won't get called until the device is no longer
> being checked. So, if ct->holders is 2, that means that the tur
> thread
> is has not shut down yet.
>
> Also, instead of returning PATH_TIMEOUT whenever the thread hasn't
> died,
> it should only time out if the thread didn't successfully get a
> value,
> which means the previous state was already PATH_TIMEOUT.
What about PATH_UNCHECKED?
>
> Signed-off-by: Benjamin Marzinski <bmarzins@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> libmultipath/checkers/tur.c | 15 +++++++++------
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/libmultipath/checkers/tur.c
> b/libmultipath/checkers/tur.c
> index bf8486d..275541f 100644
> --- a/libmultipath/checkers/tur.c
> +++ b/libmultipath/checkers/tur.c
> @@ -355,12 +355,15 @@ int libcheck_check(struct checker * c)
> }
> pthread_mutex_unlock(&ct->lock);
> } else {
> - if (uatomic_read(&ct->running) != 0) {
> - /* pthread cancel failed. continue in sync mode
> */
> - pthread_mutex_unlock(&ct->lock);
> - condlog(3, "%s: tur thread not responding",
> - tur_devt(devt, sizeof(devt), ct));
> - return PATH_TIMEOUT;
> + if (uatomic_read(&ct->holders) > 1) {
> + /* pthread cancel failed. If it didn't get the
> path
> + state already, timeout */
> + if (ct->state == PATH_PENDING) {
> + pthread_mutex_unlock(&ct->lock);
> + condlog(3, "%s: tur thread not
> responding",
> + tur_devt(devt, sizeof(devt),
> ct));
> + return PATH_TIMEOUT;
> + }
> }
I'm not quite getting it yet. We're entering this code path if
ct->thread is 0. As you point out, if there are >1 holders, a
previously cancelled TUR thread must be still "alive". But now we want
to check *again*. The previous code refused to do that - a single
hanging TUR thread could block further checks from happening, forever.
The PATH_TIMEOUT return code was actually questionable - in this
libcheck_check() invocation, we didn't even try to check, so nothing
could actually time out (but that's obviously independent of your
patch).
With your patch, if ct->state != PATH_PENDING, we'd try to start
another TUR thread although there's still a hanging one. That's not
necessarily wrong, but I fail to see why it depends on ct->state.
Anyway, if we do this, we take the risk of starting more and more TUR
threads which might all end up hanging; I wonder if we should stop
creating more threads if ct->holders grows further (e.g. > 5).
Regards,
Martin
> /* Start new TUR checker */
> ct->state = PATH_UNCHECKED;
--
Dr. Martin Wilck <mwilck@xxxxxxxx>, Tel. +49 (0)911 74053 2107
SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton
HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
