On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 10:31:02AM +0100, Martin Wilck wrote: > On Tue, 2018-11-27 at 14:13 -0600, Benjamin Marzinski wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 10:19:20AM +0100, Martin Wilck wrote: > > > > > > I like this idea, in particular for map removal. > > > Ben, what do you think? > > > > That was my original goal when I ended up with the dmevents code. I > > kept running into new corner cases. The issue is that udev, by > > design, > > does not guarantee that you will get all the uevents, and in fact, we > > do > > see this happen occasionally, so it's not a theoretical problem. > > > > Because of that, any system that relies on ueventis has to handle > > things > > like > > > > 1. Someone removes a multipath device > > 2. mutipathd misses the remove uevent > > 3. Someone creates a differnt multipath device with the same alias > > 4. multipathd misses the add uevent. > > 5. multipathd notices that your multipath device has all the wrong > > paths, and switches them. Well, fortunately, disable_changed_wwids > > will catch this and simply disable the device > > Maybe we should put more work in the "delegate dangerous commands to > multipathd" approach. Yeah. If multipath was more of a front-end to multipathd, these divergent view issues would be much less likely. > > Someone decides to switch the names of two (or more) multipath > > devices: > > 1. Someone disables user_friendly_names, renaming the devices to > > their wwid names. > > 2. mutipathd misses the uevents. > > 3. The person switches the aliases in mutipath.conf and reloads > > 4. Now multipathd needs to figure out how to swap two (or more) > > device > > aliases > > IMO this works well with the current code (unless names are really > *swapped*, e.g. mpatha<->mpathb). But maybe I'm overlooking something. It does work correctly in the current code, but that's because we never miss remove events (renames are basically a remove followed by an add). If we relied on uevents and missed them, when we checked the device in checkerloop we would find that it suddenly is all wrong. > > > > I kept trying to figure out methods around issues like these, and > > kept > > thinking up new ones. One observation I hit on was that it was > > really > > important to not miss removing a device, because that was the first > > step > > in having your multipath devices pointing to the wrong place. I'm > > not > > saying it is impossible, I'm just saying that I gave up on it. I > > would > > happily review code that dealt with all of these issues. > > If "remove" uevents is most important, what if we created an additional > monitor for "kernel" uevents in multipathd? Those should be just as > reliable as dmevents, and for removal, we don't need the udev rule > processing. Having ACTION==remove and the KERNEL name should be > sufficient. This would obviously not work for "change" or "add" events. That would certainly help, but again, I would contend that it's not as reliable as devmapper. From the netlink man page "However, reliable transmissions from kernel to user are impossible in any case. The kernel can't send a netlink message if the socket buffer is full: the message will be dropped and the kernel and the user-space process will no longer have the same view of kernel state. It is up to the application to detect when this happens (via the ENOBUFS error returned by recvmsg(2)) and resynchronize." In this case, we would need to rescan everything on ENOBUFS, but at least we would get a notification. dmevents simply has one value per device that tracks the current event number. Space for this value is allocated when the device is created, and it doesn't take any more space when there is 5000 outstanding events than when there is 1. > Also, I'd like to understand in what (test? production?) scenarios > you've observed lost uevents. Lack of reliablity of udev is a problem > not only for multipathd, and udev should be fixed. I can mainly think > of: > > 1) udev rule processing gets stuck on slow IO or IO timeouts, causing > the worker to be killed, > 2) resource contention between udev workers, in particular on large > systems during "coldplug". > > Do you have other failure scenarios in mind? I don't know if this ever being confirmed in the field, but udev and won't store an unlimited number of events. IIRC, after udev finished processing and event, processes looking for that event may have a limited time to receive that event before it is dropped, if memory is tight. To deal with this, uevent_listen needed to work quickly to make sure it didn't lose events. Or at least that was the case in the early days of multipath's udev support. It might be better now. But we've certainly seen workers killed from timeouts. > > > > However, before we start down that road (because I went down it once > > already, and turned back), lets look at fixing what we have. I agree > > that what happened here is that the dmevents code didn't see the > > device, > > and thus removed it. There seem to be two possible ways for this to > > happen > > > > 1. device-mapper told us that it successfully completed our command, > > but > > gave us incomplete information. This would be a really big issue. > > Unlike udev, device mapper is supposed to guarantee that if it > > returns success, it has the information that you asked for. It's > > not > > just multipath that depends on this. Many tools use libdevmapper. > > If there is a bug like this in it, that needs to get fixed, not > > worked around on a tool-by-tool basis. But, I don't think that > > this > > is what happened. > > > > 2. device-mapper told us that it failed to complete our command, and > > we > > didn't differentiate that from a successful completion with a > > certain > > result. I think that this is more likely the cause, largely > > because > > I can see where we do this. In dm_get_events() once we get the > > list > > of names from device-mapper we call dm_is_mpath() on each > > name. I'm > > not sure why I did this. Probably, I was worried about searching > > through a large list of non-multipath names with a lock held, and > > thought that culling devices that obviously weren't correct would > > speed this up. At any rate, if the device-mapper command fails, we > > assume that the device isn't a multipath device, even though > > device-mapper never told us that. This is clearly a bug, and it > > clearly would cause exactly the result you saw. That check should > > be > > removed, or at least we should differentiate between failure of > > the > > command and success of the command, where the device does not have > > a > > multipath table. > > Good thought. I'd stared at your code in length, but that didn't occur > to me. I feel relieved that you found an explanation short of > DM_DEVICE_LIST being unreliable. > > Martin > -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
