On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 07:39:31PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Hi Chuck,
>
> Thanks for your reply. But I am already sleeping and I can't understand it.
I was responding to "I can not understand the intent." But also I
was hoping that explanation would help you provide a correct
replacement for the existing code.
> So let me ask a couple of questions.
>
> 1. Do you agree that the current nfsd_copy_write_verifier() code makes no sense?
Probably.
> I mean, the usage of read_seqbegin_or_lock() suggests that if the lockless
> pass fails it should take writeverf_lock for writing. But this can't happen,
> and thus this code doesn't look right no matter what. None of the
> read_seqbegin_or_lock/need_seqretry/done_seqretry helpers make any sense
> because "seq" is alway even.
> 2. If yes, which change do you prefer? I'd prefer the patch at the end.
Based on my limited understanding of read_seqbegin(), the patch at
the end seems cleanest and is on-point. Please post an official
version of that to linux-nfs@ with a full patch description, and
I'll see that it gets into v6.8-rc with proper tags, review, and
testing.
> Oleg.
>
> On 10/25, Chuck Lever wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 06:30:06PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > The usage of writeverf_lock is wrong and misleading no matter what and
> > > I can not understand the intent.
> >
> > The structure of the seqlock was introduced in commit 27c438f53e79
> > ("nfsd: Support the server resetting the boot verifier").
> >
> > The NFS write verifier is an 8-byte cookie that is supposed to
> > indicate the boot epoch of the server -- simply put, when the server
> > restarts, the epoch (and this verifier) changes.
> >
> > NFSv3 and later have a two-phase write scheme where the client
> > sends data to the server (known as an UNSTABLE WRITE), then later
> > asks the server to commit that data (a COMMIT). Before the COMMIT,
> > that data is not durable and the client must hold onto it until
> > the server's COMMIT Reply indicates it's safe for the client to
> > discard that data and move on.
> >
> > When an UNSTABLE WRITE is done, the server reports its current
> > epoch as part of each WRITE Reply. If this verifier cookie changes,
> > the client knows that the server might have lost previously
> > written written-but-uncommitted data, so it must send the WRITEs
> > again in that (rare) case.
> >
> > NFSD abuses this slightly by changing the write verifier whenever
> > there is an underlying local write error that might have occurred in
> > the background (ie, there was no WRITE or COMMIT operation at the
> > time that the server could use to convey the error back to the
> > client). This is supposed to trigger clients to send UNSTABLE WRITEs
> > again to ensure that data is properly committed to durable storage.
> >
> > The point of the seqlock is to ensure that
> >
> > a) a write verifier update does not tear the verifier
> > b) a write verifier read does not see a torn verifier
> >
> > This is a hot path, so we don't want a full spinlock to achieve
> > a) and b).
> >
> > Way back when, the verifier was updated by two separate 32-bit
> > stores; hence the risk of tearing.
> >
> >
> > > nfsd_copy_write_verifier() uses read_seqbegin_or_lock() incorrectly.
> > > "seq" is always even, so read_seqbegin_or_lock() can never take the
> > > lock for writing. We need to make the counter odd for the 2nd round:
> > >
> > > --- a/fs/nfsd/nfssvc.c
> > > +++ b/fs/nfsd/nfssvc.c
> > > @@ -359,11 +359,14 @@ static bool nfsd_needs_lockd(struct nfsd_net *nn)
> > > */
> > > void nfsd_copy_write_verifier(__be32 verf[2], struct nfsd_net *nn)
> > > {
> > > - int seq = 0;
> > > + int seq, nextseq = 0;
> > >
> > > do {
> > > + seq = nextseq;
> > > read_seqbegin_or_lock(&nn->writeverf_lock, &seq);
> > > memcpy(verf, nn->writeverf, sizeof(nn->writeverf));
> > > + /* If lockless access failed, take the lock. */
> > > + nextseq = 1;
> > > } while (need_seqretry(&nn->writeverf_lock, seq));
> > > done_seqretry(&nn->writeverf_lock, seq);
> > > }
> > >
> > > OTOH. This function just copies 8 bytes, this makes me think that it doesn't
> > > need the conditional locking and read_seqbegin_or_lock() at all. So perhaps
> > > the (untested) patch below makes more sense? Please note that it should not
> > > change the current behaviour, it just makes the code look correct (and more
> > > optimal but this is minor).
> > >
> > > Another question is why we can't simply turn nn->writeverf into seqcount_t.
> > > I guess we can't because nfsd_reset_write_verifier() needs spin_lock() to
> > > serialise with itself, right?
> >
> > "reset" is supposed to be very rare operation. Using a lock in that
> > case is probably quite acceptable, as long as reading the verifier
> > is wait-free and guaranteed to be untorn.
> >
> > But a seqcount_t is only 32 bits.
> >
> >
> > > Oleg.
> > > ---
> > >
> > > diff --git a/fs/nfsd/nfssvc.c b/fs/nfsd/nfssvc.c
> > > index c7af1095f6b5..094b765c5397 100644
> > > --- a/fs/nfsd/nfssvc.c
> > > +++ b/fs/nfsd/nfssvc.c
> > > @@ -359,13 +359,12 @@ static bool nfsd_needs_lockd(struct nfsd_net *nn)
> > > */
> > > void nfsd_copy_write_verifier(__be32 verf[2], struct nfsd_net *nn)
> > > {
> > > - int seq = 0;
> > > + unsigned seq;
> > >
> > > do {
> > > - read_seqbegin_or_lock(&nn->writeverf_lock, &seq);
> > > + seq = read_seqbegin(&nn->writeverf_lock);
> > > memcpy(verf, nn->writeverf, sizeof(nn->writeverf));
> > > - } while (need_seqretry(&nn->writeverf_lock, seq));
> > > - done_seqretry(&nn->writeverf_lock, seq);
> > > + } while (read_seqretry(&nn->writeverf_lock, seq));
> > > }
> > >
> > > static void nfsd_reset_write_verifier_locked(struct nfsd_net *nn)
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Chuck Lever
> >
>
--
Chuck Lever
