Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758427Ab3DXVyx (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Apr 2013 17:54:53 -0400 Received: from youngberry.canonical.com ([91.189.89.112]:34232 "EHLO youngberry.canonical.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758090Ab3DXVyw (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Apr 2013 17:54:52 -0400 Message-ID: <5178549A.7010402@canonical.com> Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 16:54:34 -0500 From: Dave Chiluk User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130329 Thunderbird/17.0.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Myklebust, Trond" CC: "bfields@fieldses.org" , "linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH] NFSv4: Use exponential backoff delay for NFS4_ERRDELAY References: <1366836949-18465-1-git-send-email-chiluk@canonical.com> <1366838926.22397.25.camel@leira.trondhjem.org> In-Reply-To: <1366838926.22397.25.camel@leira.trondhjem.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.1 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------080807040006020205000201" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3985 Lines: 105 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------080807040006020205000201 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 04/24/2013 04:28 PM, Myklebust, Trond wrote: > On Wed, 2013-04-24 at 15:55 -0500, Dave Chiluk wrote: >> Changing the retry to start at NFS4_POLL_RETRY_MIN and exponentially grow >> to NFS4_POLL_RETRY_MAX allow for faster handling of these error conditions. >> >> Additionally this alleviates an interoperability problem with the AIX NFSv4 >> Server. The AIX server frequently (2 out of 3) returns NFS4ERR_DELAY, on a >> close when it happens in close proximity to a RELEASE_LOCKOWNER. This would >> cause a linux client to hang for 15 seconds. > > Hi Dave, > > The AIX server is not being motivated by any requirements in the NFSv4 > spec here, so I fail to see the reason why the behaviour that you > describe can justify changing the client. It is not at all obvious to me > that we should be retrying aggressively when NFSv4 servers return > NFS4ERR_DELAY. What makes 1/10sec more correct in these situations than > the exising 15 seconds? I agree with you that AIX is at fault, and that the preferable situation for the linux client would be for AIX to not return NFS4ERR_DELAY in this use case. I have attached a simple program that causes exacerbates the problem on the AIX server. I have already had a conference call with AIX NFS development about this issue, where I vehemently tried to convince them to fix their server. Unfortunately as I don't have much reputation in the NFS community, I was unable to convince them to do the right thing. I would be more than happy to set up another call, if someone higher up in the linux NFS hierarchy would be willing to participate. That being said, I think implementing an exponential backoff is an improvement in the client regardless of what AIX is doing. If a server needs only 2 seconds to process a request for which NFS4ERR_DELAY was returned, this algorithm would get the client back and running after only 2.1 seconds of elapsed time. Whereas the current dumb algorithm would simply wait 15 seconds. This is the reason that I implemented this change. > The motivation for doing it in the case of OPEN, SETATTR, etc is > clearer: those operations may require the server to recall a delegation, > in which case aggressive retries are in order since delegation recalls > are usually fast. > The motivation in the case of LOCK is less clear, but it is basically > down to the fact that NFSv4 has a polling model for doing blocking > locks. > In all other cases, why should we be treating NFS4ERR_DELAY any > differently from how we treat NFS3ERR_JUKEBOX in NFSv3? > > Note that if we do decide that changing the client is the right thing, > then I don't want the patch to add new fields to struct rpc_task. That's > the wrong layer for storing NFSv4 client specific data. This is something that I was concerned about as well, but I could not find another persistent way to do this. I am open to suggestions of which structures would be more acceptable. Thanks, Dave. --------------080807040006020205000201 Content-Type: text/x-csrc; name="open-close.c" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="open-close.c" #include #include #include #include #include #include #define FILENAME "testfile" int main() { int fd = open( FILENAME, O_RDWR ); if( fd==0 ) { fputs( "Failed to open `" FILENAME "'.", stderr ); return 1; } printf( "flock() returned %d. Now calling close() ...\n", flock( fd, LOCK_EX|LOCK_NB ) ); close( fd ); return 0; } --------------080807040006020205000201-- -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/