On Mon, 2023-06-12 at 19:53 +0000, Trond Myklebust wrote: > On Mon, 2023-06-12 at 15:17 -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > > On Mon, 2023-06-12 at 13:49 -0400, Chris Perl wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 12, 2023 at 1:30 PM Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, 2023-06-12 at 11:58 -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Got it: I think I see what's happening. filemap_sample_wb_err > > > > > just calls > > > > > errseq_sample, which does this: > > > > > > > > > > errseq_t errseq_sample(errseq_t *eseq) > > > > > { > > > > > errseq_t old = READ_ONCE(*eseq); > > > > > > > > > > /* If nobody has seen this error yet, then we can be > > > > > the first. */ > > > > > if (!(old & ERRSEQ_SEEN)) > > > > > old = 0; > > > > > return old; > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > Because no one has seen that error yet (ERRSEQ_SEEN is clear), > > > > > the write > > > > > ends up being the first to see it and it gets back a 0, even > > > > > though the > > > > > error happened before the sample. > > > > > > > > > > The above behavior is what we want for the sample that we do at > > > > > open() > > > > > time, but not what's needed for this use-case. We need a new > > > > > helper that > > > > > samples the value regardless of whether it has already been > > > > > seen: > > > > > > > > > > errseq_t errseq_peek(errseq_t *eseq) > > > > > { > > > > > return READ_ONCE(*eseq); > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > ...but we'll also need to fix up errseq_check to handle > > > > > differences > > > > > between the SEEN bit. > > > > > > > > > > I'll see if I can spin up a patch for that. Stay tuned. > > > > > > > > This may not be fixable with the way that NFS is trying to use > > > > errseq_t. > > > > > > > > The fundamental problem is that we need to mark the errseq_t in > > > > the > > > > mapping as SEEN when we sample it, to ensure that a later error > > > > is > > > > recorded and not ignored. > > > > > > > > But...if the error hasn't been reported yet and we mark it SEEN > > > > here, > > > > and then a later error doesn't occur, then a later open won't > > > > have its > > > > errseq_t set to 0, and that unseen error could be lost. > > > > > > > > It's a bit of a pity: as originally envisioned, the errseq_t > > > > mechanism > > > > would provide for this sort of use case, but we added this patch > > > > not > > > > long after the original code went in, and it changed those > > > > semantics: > > > > > > > > b4678df184b3 errseq: Always report a writeback error once > > > > > > > > I don't see a good way to do this using the current errseq_t > > > > mechanism, > > > > given these competing needs. I'll keep thinking about it though. > > > > Maybe > > > > we could add some sort of store and forward mechanism for fsync > > > > on NFS? > > > > That could get rather complex though. > > > > > > Can/should it be marked SEEN when the initial close(2) from tee(1) > > > reports the error? > > > > > > > No. Most software doesn't check for errors on close(), and for good > > reason: there's no requirement that any data be written back before > > close() returns. A successful return is meaningless. > > > > It turns out that NFSv4 (usually) writes back the data before a close > > returns, but you don't want to rely on that. > > > > > Part of the reason I had originally asked about `nfs_file_flush' > > > (i.e. > > > what close(2) calls) using `file_check_and_advance_wb_err' instead > > > of > > > `filemap_check_wb_err' was because I was drawn to comparing > > > `nfs_file_flush' against `nfs_file_fsync' as it seems like in the > > > 3.10 > > > based EL7 kernels, the former used to delegate to the latter (by > > > way > > > of `vfs_fsync') and so they had consistent behavior, whereas now > > > they > > > do not. > > > > I think the problem is in some of the changes to write that have come > > into play since then. They tried to use errseq_t to track errors over > > a > > small window, but the underlying infrastructure is not quite suited > > for > > that at the moment. > > > > I think we can get there though by carving another flag bit out of > > the > > counter in the errseq_t. I'm working on a patch for that now. > > > > The current NFS client code tries to do its best to match the > description in the manpages for how errors are reported: we try to > report them exactly once, either in write() or fsync(). > We do still return errors on close(), but that kind of opportunistic > error return makes sure to use filemap_check_wb_err() so that we don't > break the write() + fsync() documented semantics. > > The issue of picking up errors using errseq_sample() before even any > I/O has been attempted has been raised before, but AFAIK, the current > behaviour does actually match the promises made in the manpages, and it > matches what can happen with other filesystems. > I don't want to special case the NFS client, because that just leads to > people getting confused as to whether or not it will work correctly > with applications such as postgresql. > The point here would be to bring NFS more into line with how other filesystems behave. As Chris pointed out, other filesystems don't report an error on a new write() just because there was an earlier, unseen writeback error on the same inode. I think we can achieve this by carving out another flag bit from the errseq_t counter. I'm building and testing a patch now, and I'll post it once I'm convinced it's sane. Cheers, -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>