Return-Path: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: from mail-ie0-f178.google.com ([209.85.223.178]:63026 "EHLO mail-ie0-f178.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750924AbaCFTCR convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Mar 2014 14:02:17 -0500 Received: by mail-ie0-f178.google.com with SMTP id lx4so3118373iec.23 for ; Thu, 06 Mar 2014 11:02:16 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\)) Subject: Re: Optimal NFS mount options to safely allow interrupts and timeouts on newer kernels From: Trond Myklebust In-Reply-To: <20140306184847.GA18850@umich.edu> Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 14:02:13 -0500 Cc: Andrew Martin , bhawley@luminex.com, Brown Neil , linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org Message-Id: <63E10595-DB6A-4C7E-9C08-BEFF0592F757@primarydata.com> References: <1696396609.119284.1394040541217.JavaMail.zimbra@xes-inc.com> <1853694865.210849.1394082223818.JavaMail.zimbra@xes-inc.com> <20140306163721.0edfb498@notabene.brown> <1709792528-1394084840-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1367662481-@b5.c4.bise6.blackberry> <764210708.28409.1394119821635.JavaMail.zimbra@xes-inc.com> <20140306162208.GA18207@umich.edu> <1094203678.52139.1394124222574.JavaMail.zimbra@xes-inc.com> <20140306173632.GA18545@umich.edu> <1397912955.101159.1394130906695.JavaMail.zimbra@xes-inc.com> <20140306184847.GA18850@umich.edu> To: Jim Rees Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mar 6, 2014, at 13:48, Jim Rees wrote: > Andrew Martin wrote: > >> From: "Jim Rees" >> Why would a bunch of blocked apaches cause high load and reboot? > What I believe happens is the apache child processes go to serve > these requests and then block in uninterruptable sleep. Thus, there > are fewer and fewer child processes to handle new incoming requests. > Eventually, apache would normally kill said children (e.g after a > child handles a certain number of requests), but it cannot kill them > because they are in uninterruptable sleep. As more and more incoming > requests are queued (and fewer and fewer child processes are available > to serve the requests), the load climbs. > > But Neil says the sleeps should be interruptible, despite what the man page > says. > > Trond, as far as you know, should a soft mount be interruptible by SIGINT, > or should it require a SIGKILL? The ?TASK_KILLABLE? state is interruptible by any _fatal_ signal. So if the application uses sigaction() to install a handler for SIGINT, then the RPC call will no longer be interruptible by SIGINT. _________________________________ Trond Myklebust Linux NFS client maintainer, PrimaryData trond.myklebust@primarydata.com