On Thu, 2008-06-26 at 22:57 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 04:38:40PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > logank@xxxxxxxx writes:
> >
> > > On Jun 26, 2008, at 1:56 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > >
> > >>> "The file shouldn't be short unless someone truncated it, or there
> > >>> is a bug in index-pack. Neither is very likely, but I don't think
> > >>> we would want to retry pread'ing the same block forever.
> > >>
> > >> I don't think we would want to retry even once. Return value of 0
> > >> from
> > >> pread is defined to be an EOF, isn't it?
> > >
> > > No, it seems to be a simple error-out in this case. We have 2.4.20
> > > systems with nfs-utils 0.3.3 and used to frequently get the same error
> > > while pushing. I made a similar change back in February and haven't
> > > had a problem since:
> > >
> > > diff --git a/index-pack.c b/index-pack.c
> > > index 5ac91ba..85c8bdb 100644
> > > --- a/index-pack.c
> > > +++ b/index-pack.c
> > > @@ -313,7 +313,14 @@ static void *get_data_from_pack(struct
> > > object_entry *obj)
> > > src = xmalloc(len);
> > > data = src;
> > > do {
> > > + // It appears that if multiple threads read across NFS, the
> > > + // second read will fail. I know this is awful, but we wait for
> > > + // a little bit and try again.
> > > ssize_t n = pread(pack_fd, data + rdy, len - rdy, from + rdy);
> > > + if (n <= 0) {
> > > + sleep(1);
> > > + n = pread(pack_fd, data + rdy, len - rdy, from + rdy);
> > > + }
> > > if (n <= 0)
> > > die("cannot pread pack file: %s", strerror(errno));
> > > rdy += n;
> > >
> > > I use a sleep request since it seems less likely that the other thread
> > > will have an outstanding request after a second of waiting.
> >
> > Gaah. Don't we have NFS experts in house? Bruce, perhaps?
>
> Trond, you don't have any idea why a 2.6.9-42.0.8.ELsmp client (2.4.28
> server) might be returning spurious 0's from pread()?
>
> Seems like everything is happening from that one client--the file isn't
> being simultaneously accessed from the server or from another client.
Is the file only being read, or could there be a simultaneous write to
the same file? I'm surmising this could be an effect resulting from
simultaneous cache invalidations: prior to Linux 2.6.20 or so, we
weren't rigorously following the VFS/VM rules for page locking, and so
page cache invalidation in particular could have some curious
side-effects.
Cheers
Trond
--
Trond Myklebust
Linux NFS client maintainer
NetApp
Trond.Myklebust@xxxxxxxxxx
www.netapp.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
