Hello everyone,
I am posting to this list as suggested by Neil F Brown in this OpenSUSE
bugzilla: https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=909634
We are mounting user homes and other shares using 'sec=krb' and NFSv4.
With kernel 3.16.7+ (includes latest NFS patches, please see BZ link for
details) we are seeing 100% CPU core usage by a kernel process on some
machine connected to a 'NetApp FAS 3140 with ONTAP 8.1.4P1 7-mode'
NFSv3/4 Server. It looks like the problem is triggered when the NFS
server is unavailable for a short period of time or was rebooted.
Neil F Brown has come to the following conclusion so far:
------------- QUOTE -------------
What I see happening here is that a WRITE or LOCK request gets
NFS4ERR_STALE_STATEID, and then the client sends a "RENEW" request.
If the stateid is really stale, that should fail, but it doesn't. So the
client assumes everything is OK and keeps sending requests .... which
fail with NFS4ERR_STALE_STATEID.
STALE_STATEID means:
A stateid generated by an earlier server instance was used.
which means that the server must have restarted since that stateid was
issued.
So there seem to be two possible explanations:
1/ The server is lying. The stateid isn't really 'stale'. Maybe it is
'bad'.
2/ The client has previously handled a STALE_STATEID error and created a
new "client" handle, but hasn't refreshed all of the stateids that it
was holding. So it is trying to use old stateid even though it has
established a new client.
The client code looks OK, though it is sufficiently complex that I
cannot be certain. There are no patches in more recent versions.
------------- END -------------
We have some RPC/NFS debug logs available here:
https://bugzilla.novell.com/attachment.cgi?id=631962
And a wireshark trace here:
https://bugzilla.novell.com/attachment.cgi?id=632104
What I cannot do:
- Trigger or reproduce the problem reliably. It comes up every once in a
while. Around 2-3 times a month on a handful of ~50 machines.
- Provide logs from with the latest kernel (because I cannot trigger the
problem by any means. Updating all ~50 machines is not an option)
What I can do:
- Provide logs from or possibly even access to the machine in the
'broken' state for the next couple of days. I will have to reboot it at
some time to take the load of the NFS server.
I would be grateful for any help or comments.
-J Brauchle
Hi J Brauchle,
Are you producing this on a kernel that has "8faaa6d Fixing lease renewal"?
https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=8faaa6d5d48b2015
If not, I think that might be what you need.
Ben
On Thu, 23 Apr 2015, Joschi Brauchle wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> I am posting to this list as suggested by Neil F Brown in this OpenSUSE
> bugzilla: https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=909634
>
>
> We are mounting user homes and other shares using 'sec=krb' and NFSv4. With
> kernel 3.16.7+ (includes latest NFS patches, please see BZ link for details)
> we are seeing 100% CPU core usage by a kernel process on some machine
> connected to a 'NetApp FAS 3140 with ONTAP 8.1.4P1 7-mode' NFSv3/4 Server. It
> looks like the problem is triggered when the NFS server is unavailable for a
> short period of time or was rebooted.
>
> Neil F Brown has come to the following conclusion so far:
> ------------- QUOTE -------------
> What I see happening here is that a WRITE or LOCK request gets
> NFS4ERR_STALE_STATEID, and then the client sends a "RENEW" request.
>
> If the stateid is really stale, that should fail, but it doesn't. So the
> client assumes everything is OK and keeps sending requests .... which fail
> with NFS4ERR_STALE_STATEID.
>
> STALE_STATEID means:
>
> A stateid generated by an earlier server instance was used.
>
> which means that the server must have restarted since that stateid was issued.
>
> So there seem to be two possible explanations:
>
> 1/ The server is lying. The stateid isn't really 'stale'. Maybe it is 'bad'.
> 2/ The client has previously handled a STALE_STATEID error and created a new
> "client" handle, but hasn't refreshed all of the stateids that it was holding.
> So it is trying to use old stateid even though it has established a new
> client.
>
> The client code looks OK, though it is sufficiently complex that I cannot be
> certain. There are no patches in more recent versions.
> ------------- END -------------
>
> We have some RPC/NFS debug logs available here:
> https://bugzilla.novell.com/attachment.cgi?id=631962
> And a wireshark trace here:
> https://bugzilla.novell.com/attachment.cgi?id=632104
>
>
> What I cannot do:
> - Trigger or reproduce the problem reliably. It comes up every once in a
> while. Around 2-3 times a month on a handful of ~50 machines.
> - Provide logs from with the latest kernel (because I cannot trigger the
> problem by any means. Updating all ~50 machines is not an option)
>
>
> What I can do:
> - Provide logs from or possibly even access to the machine in the 'broken'
> state for the next couple of days. I will have to reboot it at some time to
> take the load of the NFS server.
>
>
>
> I would be grateful for any help or comments.
>
> -J Brauchle
Hello Ben,
thanks for the hint. I checked the kernel and it already includes this
patch, but still gets stuck in this STALE_ID -> RENEW -> STALE_ID loop...
Best regards,
J Brauchle
On 05/05/2015 07:24 PM, Benjamin Coddington wrote:
> Hi J Brauchle,
>
> Are you producing this on a kernel that has "8faaa6d Fixing lease renewal"?
> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=8faaa6d5d48b2015
>
> If not, I think that might be what you need.
>
> Ben
>
> On Thu, 23 Apr 2015, Joschi Brauchle wrote:
>
>> Hello everyone,
>>
>> I am posting to this list as suggested by Neil F Brown in this OpenSUSE
>> bugzilla: https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=909634
>>
>>
>> We are mounting user homes and other shares using 'sec=krb' and NFSv4. With
>> kernel 3.16.7+ (includes latest NFS patches, please see BZ link for details)
>> we are seeing 100% CPU core usage by a kernel process on some machine
>> connected to a 'NetApp FAS 3140 with ONTAP 8.1.4P1 7-mode' NFSv3/4 Server. It
>> looks like the problem is triggered when the NFS server is unavailable for a
>> short period of time or was rebooted.
>>
>> Neil F Brown has come to the following conclusion so far:
>> ------------- QUOTE -------------
>> What I see happening here is that a WRITE or LOCK request gets
>> NFS4ERR_STALE_STATEID, and then the client sends a "RENEW" request.
>>
>> If the stateid is really stale, that should fail, but it doesn't. So the
>> client assumes everything is OK and keeps sending requests .... which fail
>> with NFS4ERR_STALE_STATEID.
>>
>> STALE_STATEID means:
>>
>> A stateid generated by an earlier server instance was used.
>>
>> which means that the server must have restarted since that stateid was issued.
>>
>> So there seem to be two possible explanations:
>>
>> 1/ The server is lying. The stateid isn't really 'stale'. Maybe it is 'bad'.
>> 2/ The client has previously handled a STALE_STATEID error and created a new
>> "client" handle, but hasn't refreshed all of the stateids that it was holding.
>> So it is trying to use old stateid even though it has established a new
>> client.
>>
>> The client code looks OK, though it is sufficiently complex that I cannot be
>> certain. There are no patches in more recent versions.
>> ------------- END -------------
>>
>> We have some RPC/NFS debug logs available here:
>> https://bugzilla.novell.com/attachment.cgi?id=631962
>> And a wireshark trace here:
>> https://bugzilla.novell.com/attachment.cgi?id=632104
>>
>>
>> What I cannot do:
>> - Trigger or reproduce the problem reliably. It comes up every once in a
>> while. Around 2-3 times a month on a handful of ~50 machines.
>> - Provide logs from with the latest kernel (because I cannot trigger the
>> problem by any means. Updating all ~50 machines is not an option)
>>
>>
>> What I can do:
>> - Provide logs from or possibly even access to the machine in the 'broken'
>> state for the next couple of days. I will have to reboot it at some time to
>> take the load of the NFS server.
>>
>>
>>
>> I would be grateful for any help or comments.
>>
>> -J Brauchle