[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAPAsAGzJW1C-4rd9myZOsiA9dLp2d420PTePaguK=y2RWjrz2A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2015 11:19:03 +0300
From: Andrey Ryabinin <ryabinin.a.a@...il.com>
To: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Andrey Ryabinin <ryabinin.a.a@...il.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@...il.com>,
linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: running out of tags in 9P (was Re: [git pull] vfs part 2)
On 07/02/2015 10:59 AM, Al Viro wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 02, 2015 at 10:50:05AM +0300, Andrey Ryabinin wrote:
>
>>>> and see if it triggers. I'm not sure if failing with ENOMEM is the
>>>> right response (another variant is to sleep there until the pile
>>>> gets cleaned or until we get killed), and WARN_ON_ONCE() is definitely
>>>> not for the real work, but it will do for confirming that this is what
>>>> we are hitting.
>>>
>>
>> Apparently, I'm seeing something else. That WARN_ON_ONCE didn't trigger.
>
> Summary for those who'd missed the beginning of the thread: what we are
> seeing is p9_client_write() issing TWRITE and getting RWRITE in reply
> (tags match, packets look plausible) with count in RWRITE way more than
> that in TWRITE.
>
> IOW, we are telling the server to write e.g. 93 bytes and are getting told
> that yes, the write had been successful - all 4096 bytes of it.
>
> qemu virtio-9p for server; from my reading of qemu side of things, it can't
> be sending reply with count greater than that in request.
Besides qemu, I've also tried kvmtool with the same result. IOW I'm seeing
this under kvmtool as well. It just takes a bit longer to reproduce
this in kvmtool.
> The bug I suspected to be the cause of that is in tag allocation in
> net/9p/client.c - we could end up wrapping around 2^16 with enough pending
> requests and that would have triggered that kind of mess. However, Andrey
> doesn't see that test (tag wraparound in p9_client_prepare_req()) trigger.
> BTW, was that on the run where debugging printk in p9_client_write() *did*
> trigger?
Yes, WARN_ON_ONCE() in p9_client_prepare_req() didn't trigger,
but debug printk in p9_client_write() *did* trigger.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists