On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 3:17 PM, bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 02:58:12PM -0500, Olga Kornievskaia wrote: >> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 2:32 PM, bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx >> <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 05:45:52PM +0000, Trond Myklebust wrote: >> >> On Thu, 2016-11-17 at 11:31 -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote: >> >> > On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 02:55:05PM -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: >> >> > > >> >> > > I'm replying to a rather old message, but the issue has just now >> >> > > popped >> >> > > back up again. >> >> > > >> >> > > To recap, a client stops being able to access _any_ mount on a >> >> > > particular server, and "NFS: nfs4_reclaim_open_state: Lock reclaim >> >> > > failed!" appears several hundred times per second in the kernel >> >> > > log. >> >> > > The load goes up by one for ever process attempting to access any >> >> > > mount >> >> > > from that particular server. Mounts to other servers are fine, and >> >> > > other clients can mount things from that one server without >> >> > > problems. >> >> > > >> >> > > When I kill every process keeping that particular mount active and >> >> > > then >> >> > > umount it, I see: >> >> > > >> >> > > NFS: nfs4_reclaim_open_state: unhandled error -10068 >> >> > >> >> > NFS4ERR_RETRY_UNCACHED_REP. >> >> > >> >> > So, you're using NFSv4.1 or 4.2, and the server thinks that the >> >> > client >> >> > has reused a (slot, sequence number) pair, but the server doesn't >> >> > have a >> >> > cached response to return. >> >> > >> >> > Hard to know how that happened, and it's not shown in the below. >> >> > Sounds like a bug, though. >> >> >> >> ...or a Ctrl-C.... >> > >> > How does that happen? >> > >> >> If I may chime in... >> >> Bruce, when an application sends a Ctrl-C and clients's session slot >> has sent out an RPC but didn't process the reply, the client doesn't >> know if the server processed that sequence id or not. In that case, >> the client doesn't increment the sequence number. Normally the client >> would handle getting such an error by retrying again (and resetting >> the slots) but I think during recovery operation the client handles >> errors differently (by just erroring). I believe the reasoning that we >> don't want to be stuck trying to recover from the recovery from the >> recovery etc... > > So in that case the client can end up sending a different rpc reusing > the old slot and sequence number? Correct. >> >> Jason, >> >> The UNCACHED_REP error is really not interesting as it's a consequence >> of you having a client that already failed with an error of "unable to >> reclaim the locks". I'm surprised that the application doesn't error >> at this point with EIO. But that aside, I think I've seen this kind of >> behavior due to client't callback channel going down (and not replying >> to the CB_RECALLs and then server revoking state). >> >> >> >> > --b. >> > -- >> > 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 -- 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
