Hello,
It seems this email to Greg Banks is bouncing (no longer works at SGI),
and I see git commit 59a252ff8c0f2fa32c896f69d56ae33e641ce7ad is still
in HEAD (and still causing problems for our load).
Can somebody else eyeball this, please? I don't understand enough about
this particular change to fix the request latency / queue backlogging
that this patch seems to introduce.
It would seem to me that this patch is flawed because svc_xprt_enqueue()
is edge-triggered upon the arrival of packets, but the NFS threads
themselves cannot then pull another request off of the socket queue.
This patch likely helps with the particular benchmark, but not in our
load case where there is a heavy mix of cached and uncached NFS requests.
Simon-
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 02:11:26PM -0700, Simon Kirby wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 10:09:41PM -0700, Simon Kirby wrote:
>
> > Actually, we just saw another similar crash on another machine which is
> > an NFS client from this server (no nfsd running). Same backtrace, but
> > this time RAX was "32322e32352e3031", which is obviously ASCII
> > ("22.25.01"), so memory scribbling seems to definitely be happening...
>
> Good news: 2.6.30 seems to have fixed whatever the original scribbling
> source was. I see at least a couple of suspect commits in the log, but
> I'm not sure which yet.
>
> However, with 2.6.30, it seems 59a252ff8c0f2fa32c896f69d56ae33e641ce7ad
> is causing us a large performance regression. The server's response
> latency is huge compared to normal. I suspected this patch was the
> culprit, so I wrote over the instruction that loads SVC_MAX_WAKING before
> this comparison:
>
> + if (pool->sp_nwaking >= SVC_MAX_WAKING) {
> + /* too many threads are runnable and trying to wake up */
> + thread_avail = 0;
> + }
>
> ...when I raised SVC_MAX_WAKING to 40ish, the problem for us disappears.
>
> The problem is that with just 72 nfsd processes running, the NFS socket
> has a ~1 MB backlog of packets on it, even though "ps" shows most of the
> nfsd threads are not blocked. This is on an 8 core system, with high NFS
> packet rates. More NFS threads (300) made no difference.
>
> As soon as I raised SVC_MAX_WAKING, the load average went up again to
> what it normally was before with 2.6.29, but the socket's receive backlog
> went down to nearly 0 again, and the request latency is now back to
> normal.
>
> I think the issue here is that whatever calls svc_xprt_enqueue() isn't
> doing it again as soon as the threads sleep again, but only when the next
> packet comes in, or something...
>
> Simon-
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
