> On Wed, Mar 30 2016, Chuck Lever wrote: > > >> On Mar 29, 2016, at 6:47 PM, NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, Mar 30 2016, Chuck Lever wrote: > >> > >>> Hi Neil- > >>> > >>> Ramblings inline. > >>> > >>> > >>>> On Mar 27, 2016, at 7:40 PM, NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> I've always thought that NLM was a less-than-perfect locking > >>>> protocol, but I recently discovered as aspect of it that is worse than I > imagined. > >>>> > >>>> Suppose client-A holds a lock on some region of a file, and > >>>> client-B makes a non-blocking lock request for that region. > >>>> Now suppose as just before handling that request the lockd thread > >>>> on the server stalls - for example due to excessive memory pressure > >>>> causing a kmalloc to take 11 seconds (rare, but possible. Such > >>>> allocations never fail, they just block until they can be served). > >>>> > >>>> During this 11 seconds (say, at the 5 second mark), client-A > >>>> releases the lock - the UNLOCK request to the server queues up > >>>> behind the non-blocking LOCK from client-B > >>>> > >>>> The default retry time for NLM in Linux is 10 seconds (even for > >>>> TCP!) so NLM on client-B resends the non-blocking LOCK request, and > >>>> it queues up behind the UNLOCK request. > >>>> > >>>> Now finally the lockd thread gets some memory/CPU time and starts > >>>> handling requests: > >>>> LOCK from client-B - DENIED > >>>> UNLOCK from client-A - OK > >>>> LOCK from client-B - OK > >>>> > >>>> Both replies to client-B have the same XID so client-B will believe > >>>> whichever one it gets first - DENIED. > >>>> > >>>> So now we have the situation where client-B doesn't think it holds > >>>> a lock, but the server thinks it does. This is not good. > >>>> > >>>> I think this explains a locking problem that a customer is seeing. > >>>> The application seems to busy-wait for the lock using non-blocking > >>>> LOCK requests. Each LOCK request has a different 'svid' so I > >>>> assume each comes from a different process. If you busy-wait from > >>>> the one process this problem won't occur. > >>>> > >>>> Having a reply-cache on the server lockd might help, but such > >>>> things easily fill up and cannot provide a guarantee. > >>> > >>> What would happen if the client serialized non-blocking lock > >>> operations for each inode? Or, if a non-blocking lock request is > >>> outstanding on an inode when another such request is made, can > >>> EAGAIN be returned to the application? > >> > >> I cannot quite see how this is relevant. > >> I imagine one app on one client is using non-blocking requests to try > >> to get a lock, and a different app on a different client holds, and > >> then drops, the lock. > >> I don't see how serialization on any one client will change that. > > > > Each client and the server need to agree on the state of a lock. If > > the client can send more than one non-blocking request at the same > > time, it will surely be confused when the requests or replies are > > misordered. IIUC this is exactly what sequence IDs are for in NFSv4. > > > > If a client sends two different non-blocking requests they will have different > "svid" (aka client-side pid) values. Providing the client gets replies to both > requests it shouldn't be confused about the outcome. Right, and with two different svid, that would definitely be two different xid. > Except... if two threads in the same process try non-blocking locks at the > same time.... That is probably a recipe for confusion, but I don't think NLM > makes it more confusing. > If the lock gets granted on the server, then it is quite possible that either or > both threads will think that they got the lock (as a lock held by one thread > does not conflict with a lock held by the other). But at least one thread will > think it owns it. > If the lock doesn't get granted, neither threads will think they have it. Hmm, I think each system call should definitely result in a different XID, so in the case of two threads making lock calls, it should result in two NFS calls - UNLESS - the client processes the lock locally (in which case, a system call to request a lock that is already held by the process could be granted locally). > >>>> Having a longer timeout on the client would probably help too. At > >>>> the very least we should increase the maximum timeout beyond 20 > seconds. > >>>> (assuming I reading the code correctly, the client resend timeout > >>>> is based on nlmsvc_timeout which is set from nlm_timeout which is > >>>> restricted to the range 3-20). > >>> > >>> A longer timeout means the client is slower to respond to slow or > >>> lost replies (ie, adjusting the timeout is not consequence free). > >> > >> True. But for NFS/TCP the default timeout is 60 seconds. > >> For NLM/TCP the default is 10 seconds and a hard upper limit is 20 > >> seconds. > >> This, at least, can be changed without fearing consequences. > > > > The consequences are slower recovery from dropped requests. > > Is NLM more likely to drop requests than NFS? > > > > > > >>> Making the RTT slightly longer than this particular server needs to > >>> recharge its batteries seems like a very local tuning adjustment. > >> > >> This is exactly what I've ask out partner to experiment with. No > >> results yet. > > > > It may indeed help this customer, but my point is this is not a reason > > to make a change to the shrink-wrap defaults. > > > > Even if those defaults are inconsistent? Treating NLM very differently From > NFS? > > > > >>>> Forcing the xid to change on every retransmit (for NLM) would > >>>> ensure that we only accept the last reply, which I think is safe. > >>> > >>> To make this work, then, you'd make client-side NLM RPCs soft, and > >>> the upper layer (NLM) would handle the retries. When a soft RPC > >>> times out, that would "cancel" that XID and the client would ignore > >>> subsequent replies for it. > >> > >> Soft, with zero retransmits I assume. The NLM client already assumes > >> "hard" (it doesn't pay attention to the "soft" NFS option). Moving > >> that indefinite retry from sunrpc to lockd would probably be easy enough. > >> > >> > >>> > >>> The problem is what happens when the server has received and > >>> processed the original RPC, but the reply itself is lost (say, > >>> because the TCP connection closed due to a network partition). > >>> > >>> Seems like there is similar capacity for the client and server to > >>> disagree about the state of the lock. > >> > >> I think that as long as the client sees the reply to the *last* > >> request, they will end up agreeing. > > > > Can you show how you proved this to be the case? > > Ahhh... It's "proof" you want is it. Where is that envelope.... > > I'm assuming that a single process will be single-threaded with respect to any > given lock, so it can only race with other processes/clients. > > If a process sends an arbitrary number of non-blocking LOCK requests, then > either none of them will be granted, or one will be granted and the others > will acknowledge that the lock is already in place. There is no difference in > the NLM response between "You have just been granted this lock" and "You > already had this lock, why you ask again". So the reply to the last request will > indicate if the lock is held or not. > > For UNLOCK requests, the lock - if there was one - will be dropped on the > first request processed so multiple consecutive UNLOCK requests will all > return the same result, including particularly the last one. > > For blocking LOCK requests the situation is much the same as non-blocking > locks except that the lock is granted pre-emptively (as soon as something > else unlocks it) and there is a GRANT callback. Providing the client continues > to make LOCK requests until it is granted (as you would expect), or makes an > UNLOCK request repeatedly until that is acknowledged (as you would expect > if the lock attempt is aborted), one of the above two cases applies. > > Is that woffle enough of a proof? > > > > > > >> So if requests can be re-order you could have problems, but tcp > >> protects us again that. > > > > No, it doesn't. The server is free to put RPC replies on a TCP socket > > in any order, and the TCP connection can be lost at any time due to > > network partition. > > Re-ordering of replies isn't a problem - providing they don't have the same > 'xid' which is what I'm proposing. The client can tell which reply matches > which request and will only attend to the reply to the *last* request. > > Re-ordering *requests* can be a problem. But the client will put them on > the connection in the correct order. > > If the client closes a TCP connection, opens a new one, and sends a request, > can the server still process requests that arrived on the first connection after > requests on the second? > I would hope that the "close connection" would wait for FIN+ACK from the > server, after which the server would not read anything more?? Server could have read those requests off the socket, but not yet processed them. Ganesha definitely does this. I'm not sure if there's a way to synchronize and flush the queue when a socket is closed before FIN+ACK is sent. > Thanks, > NeilBrown > > > > > (Note connection loss forces the server to drop the reply, and the > > client is forced to retransmit, no matter what the timeout may be). > > > > NLM has to order these requests itself, somehow. > > > > > >> I'll have a look at what it would take to get NLM to re-issue requests. > > > > Easy to do, I would think, but with all the problems guaranteeing > > idempotency that "soft" brings to the table. > > > > > > -- > > Chuck Lever > > > > > > > > -- > > 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 --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -- 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
