Return-Path: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: from fieldses.org ([174.143.236.118]:56991 "EHLO fieldses.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755185Ab3DYS5L (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Apr 2013 14:57:11 -0400 Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 14:57:01 -0400 From: "bfields@fieldses.org" To: Chuck Lever Cc: "Myklebust, Trond" , David Wysochanski , Dave Chiluk , "linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH] NFSv4: Use exponential backoff delay for NFS4_ERRDELAY Message-ID: <20130425185701.GD5049@fieldses.org> References: <1366842905.22397.49.camel@leira.trondhjem.org> <1366892374.26249.294.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20130425132907.GB31851@fieldses.org> <1366896654.4719.18.camel@leira.trondhjem.org> <20130425134918.GC31851@fieldses.org> <1366899034.6812.4.camel@leira.trondhjem.org> <20130425181932.GA5049@fieldses.org> <81BBEA25-CDE5-42B1-996D-90C26A43DEF6@oracle.com> <20130425184626.GC5049@fieldses.org> <04318EF4-375D-49FD-8DB0-2BC6429543A9@oracle.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <04318EF4-375D-49FD-8DB0-2BC6429543A9@oracle.com> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 02:51:20PM -0400, Chuck Lever wrote: > > On Apr 25, 2013, at 2:46 PM, "bfields@fieldses.org" wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 02:40:11PM -0400, Chuck Lever wrote: > >> > >> On Apr 25, 2013, at 2:19 PM, "bfields@fieldses.org" wrote: > >> > >>> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 02:10:36PM +0000, Myklebust, Trond wrote: > >>>> On Thu, 2013-04-25 at 09:49 -0400, bfields@fieldses.org wrote: > >>>>> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 01:30:58PM +0000, Myklebust, Trond wrote: > >>>>>> On Thu, 2013-04-25 at 09:29 -0400, bfields@fieldses.org wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> My position is that we simply have no idea what order of magnitude even > >>>>>>> delay should be. And that in such a situation exponential backoff such > >>>>>>> as implemented in the synchronous case seems the reasonable default as > >>>>>>> it guarantees at worst doubling the delay while still bounding the > >>>>>>> long-term average frequency of retries. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> So we start with a 15 second delay, and then go to 60 seconds? > >>>>> > >>>>> I agree that a server should normally be doing the wait on its own if > >>>>> the wait would be on the order of an rpc round trip. > >>>>> > >>>>> So I'd be inclined to start with a delay that was an order of magnitude > >>>>> or two more than a round trip. > >>>>> > >>>>> And I'd expect NFS isn't common on networks with 1-second latencies. > >>>>> > >>>>> So the 1/10 second we're using in the synchronous case sounds closer to > >>>>> the right ballpark to me. > >>>> > >>>> OK, then. Now all I need is actual motivation for changing the existing > >>>> code other than handwaving arguments about "polling is better than flat > >>>> waits". > >>>> What actual use cases are impacting us now, other than the AIX design > >>>> decision to force CLOSE to retry at least once before succeeding? > >>> > >>> Nah, I've got nothing, and I agree that the AIX problem is there bug. > >>> > >>> Just for fun I looked at re-checked the Linux server cases. As far as I > >>> can tell they are: > >>> > >>> - delegations: returned immediately on detection of any > >>> conflict. The current behavior in the sync case looks > >>> reasonable to me. > >>> - allocation failures: not really sure it's the best error, but > >>> it seems to be all the protocol offers. We probably don't > >>> care much what the client does in this case. > >>> - some rare cases that would probably indicate bugs (e.g., > >>> attempting to destroy a client while other rpc's from that > >>> client are running.) Again we don't care what the client does > >>> here. > >>> - the 4.1 slot-inuse case. > >>> > >>> We also by default map four errors (ETIMEDOUT, EAGAIN, EWOULDBLOCK, > >>> ENOMEM) to delay. I thought I remembered one of those being used by > >>> some HFS system, but can't actually find an example now. A quick grep > >>> doesn't show anything interesting. > >> > >> It's worth mentioning that servers that have frozen state (say, in preparation for Transparent State Migration) may use NFS4ERR_DELAY to prevent clients from modifying open or lock state until that state has transitioned to a destination server. > > > > I thought they'd decided they'll be forced to find a different way to do > > that? > > > > (The issue being that it only works if you're using 4.1, and if the > > session state itself isn't part of the state to be transferred. > > Otherwise you're forced to modify the state anyway since NFS4ERR_DELAY > > is seqid-modifying.) > > The answer is not to return NFS4ERR_DELAY on seqid-modifying operations. > > The source server can return NFS4ERR_DELAY to the client's migration recovery operations (the GETATTR(fs_locations) request) for example. > > Or, the server could return it on the initial PUTFH operation in a compound containing seqid-modifying operations. Oh, right, I'd forgotten that approach.... --b.