On Tue, 2021-06-08 at 17:40 -0400, Olga Kornievskaia wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 8, 2021 at 5:06 PM Chuck Lever III <
> chuck.lever@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jun 8, 2021, at 4:56 PM, Olga Kornievskaia <
> > > olga.kornievskaia@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 8, 2021 at 4:41 PM Chuck Lever III <
> > > chuck.lever@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > On Jun 8, 2021, at 2:45 PM, Olga Kornievskaia <
> > > > > olga.kornievskaia@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > From: Olga Kornievskaia <kolga@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > >
> > > > > After trunking is discovered in
> > > > > nfs4_discover_server_trunking(),
> > > > > add the transport to the old client structure before
> > > > > destroying
> > > > > the new client structure (along with its transport).
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Olga Kornievskaia <kolga@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > fs/nfs/nfs4client.c | 40
> > > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > > 1 file changed, 40 insertions(+)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/fs/nfs/nfs4client.c b/fs/nfs/nfs4client.c
> > > > > index 42719384e25f..984c851844d8 100644
> > > > > --- a/fs/nfs/nfs4client.c
> > > > > +++ b/fs/nfs/nfs4client.c
> > > > > @@ -361,6 +361,44 @@ static int
> > > > > nfs4_init_client_minor_version(struct nfs_client *clp)
> > > > > return nfs4_init_callback(clp);
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > +static void nfs4_add_trunk(struct nfs_client *clp, struct
> > > > > nfs_client *old)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > + struct sockaddr_storage clp_addr, old_addr;
> > > > > + struct sockaddr *clp_sap = (struct sockaddr
> > > > > *)&clp_addr;
> > > > > + struct sockaddr *old_sap = (struct sockaddr
> > > > > *)&old_addr;
> > > > > + size_t clp_salen, old_salen;
> > > > > + struct xprt_create xprt_args = {
> > > > > + .ident = old->cl_proto,
> > > > > + .net = old->cl_net,
> > > > > + .servername = old->cl_hostname,
> > > > > + };
> > > > > + struct nfs4_add_xprt_data xprtdata = {
> > > > > + .clp = old,
> > > > > + };
> > > > > + struct rpc_add_xprt_test rpcdata = {
> > > > > + .add_xprt_test = old->cl_mvops->session_trunk,
> > > > > + .data = &xprtdata,
> > > > > + };
> > > > > +
> > > > > + if (clp->cl_proto != old->cl_proto)
> > > > > + return;
> > > > > + clp_salen = rpc_peeraddr(clp->cl_rpcclient, clp_sap,
> > > > > sizeof(clp_addr));
> > > > > + old_salen = rpc_peeraddr(old->cl_rpcclient, old_sap,
> > > > > sizeof(old_addr));
> > > > > +
> > > > > + if (clp_addr.ss_family != old_addr.ss_family)
> > > > > + return;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + xprt_args.dstaddr = clp_sap;
> > > > > + xprt_args.addrlen = clp_salen;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + xprtdata.cred = nfs4_get_clid_cred(old);
> > > > > + rpc_clnt_add_xprt(old->cl_rpcclient, &xprt_args,
> > > > > + rpc_clnt_setup_test_and_add_xprt,
> > > > > &rpcdata);
> > > >
> > > > Is there an upper bound on the number of transports that
> > > > are added to the NFS client's switch?
> > >
> > > I don't believe any limits exist right now. Why should there be a
> > > limit? Are you saying that the client should limit trunking?
> > > While
> > > this is not what's happening here, but say FS_LOCATION returned
> > > 100
> > > ips for the server. Are you saying the client should be limiting
> > > how
> > > many trunkable connections it would be establishing and picking
> > > just a
> > > few addresses to try? What's happening with this patch is that
> > > say
> > > there are 100mounts to 100 ips (each representing the same server
> > > or
> > > trunkable server(s)), without this patch a single connection is
> > > kept,
> > > with this patch we'll have 100 connections.
> >
> > The patch description needs to make this behavior more clear. It
> > needs to explain "why" -- the body of the patch already explains
> > "what". Can you include your last sentence in the description as
> > a use case?
>
> I sure can.
>
> > As for the behavior... Seems to me that there are going to be only
> > infinitesimal gains after the first few connections, and after
> > that, it's going to be a lot for both sides to manage for no real
> > gain. I think you do want to cap the total number of connections
> > at a reasonable number, even in the FS_LOCATIONS case.
>
> Do you want to cap it at 16 like we do for nconnect? I'm ok with that
> for now.
>
> I don't understand why a setup where there X NICs on each side
> (client/server) and X mounts are done, there won't be throughput of
> close to X * throughput of a single NIC.
That still does not make the patch acceptable. There are already server
vendors seeing problems with supporting nconnect for various reasons.
There needs to be a way to ensure that we can keep the current client
behaviour without requiring changes to server DNS entries, etc.
>
> > > > > +
> > > > > + if (xprtdata.cred)
> > > > > + put_cred(xprtdata.cred);
> > > > > +}
> > > > > +
> > > > > /**
> > > > > * nfs4_init_client - Initialise an NFS4 client record
> > > > > *
> > > > > @@ -434,6 +472,8 @@ struct nfs_client
> > > > > *nfs4_init_client(struct nfs_client *clp,
> > > > > * won't try to use it.
> > > > > */
> > > > > nfs_mark_client_ready(clp, -EPERM);
> > > > > + if (old->cl_mvops->session_trunk)
> > > > > + nfs4_add_trunk(clp, old);
> > > > > }
> > > > > clear_bit(NFS_CS_TSM_POSSIBLE, &clp->cl_flags);
> > > > > nfs_put_client(clp);
> > > > > --
> > > > > 2.27.0
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Chuck Lever
> >
> > --
> > Chuck Lever
> >
> >
> >
--
Trond Myklebust
Linux NFS client maintainer, Hammerspace
trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
