Message-ID: <4EC6B82B.3000701@citrix.com>
Date:	Fri, 18 Nov 2011 19:55:23 +0000
From:	Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>
To:	Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com>
CC:	"linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org" <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: NFS TCP race condition with SOCK_ASYNC_NOSPACE

On 18/11/2011 19:14, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-11-18 at 19:04 +0000, Andrew Cooper wrote: 
>> On 18/11/11 18:52, Trond Myklebust wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2011-11-18 at 18:40 +0000, Andrew Cooper wrote: 
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> As described originally in
>>>> http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-nfs/msg25314.html, we were
>>>> encountering a bug whereby the NFS session was unexpectedly timing out.
>>>>
>>>> I believe I have found the source of the race condition causing the timeout.
>>>>
>>>> Brief overview of setup:
>>>>   10GiB network, NFS mounted using TCP.  Problem reproduces with
>>>> multiple different NICs, with synchronous or asynchronous mounts, and
>>>> with soft and hard mounts.  Reproduces on 2.6.32 and I am currently
>>>> trying to reproduce with mainline. (I don't have physical access to the
>>>> servers so installing stuff is not fantastically easy)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In net/sunrpc/xprtsock.c:xs_tcp_send_request(), we try to write data to
>>>> the sock buffer using xs_sendpages()
>>>>
>>>> When the sock buffer is nearly fully, we get an EAGAIN from
>>>> xs_sendpages() which causes a break out of the loop.  Lower down the
>>>> function, we switch on status which cases us to call xs_nospace() with
>>>> the task.
>>>>
>>>> In xs_nospace(), we test the SOCK_ASYNC_NOSPACE bit from the socket, and
>>>> in the rare case where that bit is clear, we return 0 instead of
>>>> EAGAIN.  This promptly overwrites status in xs_tcp_send_request().
>>>>
>>>> The result is that xs_tcp_release_xprt() finds a request which has no
>>>> error, but has not sent all of the bytes in its send buffer.  It cleans
>>>> up by setting XPRT_CLOSE_WAIT which causes xprt_clear_locked() to queue
>>>> xprt->task_cleanup, which closes the TCP connection.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Under normal operation, the TCP connection goes down and back up without
>>>> interruption to the NFS layer.  However, when the NFS server hangs in a
>>>> half closed state, the client forces a RST of the TCP connection,
>>>> leading to the timeout.
>>>>
>>>> I have tried a few naive fixes such as changing the default return value
>>>> in xs_nospace() from 0 to -EAGAIN (meaning that 0 will never be
>>>> returned) but this causes a kernel memory leak.  Can someone who a
>>>> better understanding of these interactions than me have a look?  It
>>>> seems that the if (test_bit()) test in xs_nospace() should have an else
>>>> clause.
>>> I fully agree with your analysis. The correct thing to do here is to
>>> always return either EAGAIN or ENOTCONN. Thank you very much for working
>>> this one out!
>>>
>>> Trond
>> Returning EAGAIN seems to cause a kernel memory leak, as the oomkiller
>> starts going after processes holding large amounts of LowMem.  Returning
> The EAGAIN should trigger a retry of the send.
>
>> ENOTCONN causes the NFS session to complain about a timeout in the logs,
>> and in the case of a softmout, give an EIO to the calling process.
> Correct. ENOTCONN means that the connection was lost.
>
>> >From the looks of the TCP stream, and from the the looks of some
>> targeted debugging, nothing is actually wrong, so the client should not
>> be trying to FIN the TCP connection.  Is it possible that there is a
>> more sinister reason for SOCK_ASYNC_NOSPACE being clear?
> Normally, it means that we're out of the out-of-write-buffer condition
> that caused the socket to fail (i.e. the socket has made progress
> sending more data, so that we can now resume sending more). Returning
> EAGAIN in that condition is correct.

Following my latest set of tests, I would have to say that we are in the
abnormal case.  Removing the test_bit check and always requeuing causes
the next call to xs_sendpages() to return with an ENOTCONN.  I guess I
have some more debugging to do.

>
>> I can attempt to find which of the many calls to clear that bit is
>> actually causing the problem, but I have a feeing that is going to a
>> little more tricky to narrow down.
>>

~Andrew
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Powered by blists - more mailing lists