Received: by 2002:a25:ad19:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id y25csp1369662ybi; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 14:31:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwf0srUD0NJuLGJ4l+OLiREsgv6lAcVf346+LpKeLRJvhmtO0OzjqeQSMdP9FFx7xAclbhO X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:20a2:: with SMTP id f31mr15165261pjg.90.1562189473138; Wed, 03 Jul 2019 14:31:13 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1562189473; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=ZqEY/DJLPBIdHr/Tc3MilVPYe9QOYJDmCLCJLp3sKtagiQFTM2olgEDWqCJXeWMA0x glEHMMFl86a2OrxWabcWpb9wVxdcQMPGsevWIiBS36oHesW97D/bh/hMWY8w12tAD7HG Cy/17WysPoPsfGVYMOyuQbILEuCZfadCgCmCMdlD9XBmAoSkkaeM0TV+wTnWAlE4A0kX QEDxRu2xwa9Ya8BQFc1nsCb043Ant34hoct44san1BMdUrahApde8p6tV8slQJhesnL/ 0FJ7PwhtaBWyb+ApUsCfZiusPRI9s2A3N+vWH48N7DwcEwWbmkW4iavwmJHF7wg3VBke zDfw== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:in-reply-to:content-disposition :mime-version:references:message-id:subject:to:from:date :dkim-signature:dkim-filter; bh=xtvcBkhZQMHtrCmE/920LkbkfaUDBJvo8ELcMPK895M=; b=A3QI2p0WqVeCLmspYXVjSeFlftNHcuYBsf6Zt1nwjCq9ooKOf4qJDvGSgaYwbLJ8bi pcBNNBIWU5jJL1T8PEQC5Bnk0jJbQaIac0Xk876Yg6lYP7eG6BpGqghPruHn3Fg0Tq7T hJA+xrodyxD6dIa+Jt+hKH24pBbmJ3RGzJTExtYNDCAp1CIH0JKZUdcm5XGqQFJBq9jh Tv0MEBfbzDbTfQYFtvhwb6BnvAUXaf2bcGhnEKI5/YIUj80ndfajYljPUmNX+7IDTu8P gRBblsrZrLDojj2re3pf1LedSpVPTK8txiky4j/G66VeKLgeT05fyRlLsdtlTtIshwl9 l9vg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@prgmr.com header.s=default header.b=lYJSnzK5; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id t17si3105107pgu.68.2019.07.03.14.30.49; Wed, 03 Jul 2019 14:31:13 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@prgmr.com header.s=default header.b=lYJSnzK5; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727256AbfGCVaa (ORCPT + 99 others); Wed, 3 Jul 2019 17:30:30 -0400 Received: from mail.prgmr.com ([71.19.149.6]:57062 "EHLO mail.prgmr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726902AbfGCVaa (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Jul 2019 17:30:30 -0400 Received: from turtle.mx (96-92-68-116-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [96.92.68.116]) (Authenticated sender: adp) by mail.prgmr.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1C29872008D for ; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 22:27:29 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mail.prgmr.com 1C29872008D DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=prgmr.com; s=default; t=1562207249; bh=xtvcBkhZQMHtrCmE/920LkbkfaUDBJvo8ELcMPK895M=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=lYJSnzK5uQOlPGXfKfDgQMN6wEP9dNZ60GS//8lz0lus9u1OtHSt1uhLJmbtBPi9i McuT8vdi7HTlJ4oKTeHlPIVJHcLxxBmGNugV9RV2DRV39DK7TM4fp4v7jNITaXeuZ9 Vv83t58uwBehUM38zSgVdebmT8kHsALD59pLfCnI= Received: (qmail 22989 invoked by uid 1353); 3 Jul 2019 21:32:21 -0000 Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2019 15:32:21 -0600 From: Alan Post To: linux-nfs Subject: Re: User process NFS write hang in wait_on_commit with kworker Message-ID: <20190703213221.GB4158@turtle.email> References: <20190618000613.GR4158@turtle.email> <6DE07E49-D450-4BF7-BC61-0973A14CD81B@redhat.com> <20190619000746.GT4158@turtle.email> <25608EB2-87F0-4196-BEF9-8AB8FC72270B@redhat.com> <20190621204723.GU4158@turtle.email> <20190628183324.GJ4158@turtle.email> <35045385-2C77-4BA0-8641-2AE4E73E04A4@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <35045385-2C77-4BA0-8641-2AE4E73E04A4@redhat.com> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jul 02, 2019 at 05:55:10AM -0400, Benjamin Coddington wrote: > > As far as I understand it, for a particular xid, there should be a > > call and a reply. The approach I took then was to pull out these > > fields from my capture and ignore RPC calls where both are present > > in my capture. It seems this is simplistic, as the number of RPC > > calls I have without an attendant reply isn't lining up with my > > incident window. > > Does your capture report dropped packets? If so, maybe you need to increase > the capture buffer. > I'm not certain, but I do have a capture on both the NFS server and the NFS client--comparing them would show me if I was under most circumstances. Good catch. > > In one example, I have a series of READ calls which cease > > generating RPC reply messages as the offset for the file continues > > to increases. After a couple/few dozen messages, the RPC replies > > continue as they were. Is there a normal or routine explanation > > for this? > > > > RFC 5531 and the NetworkTracing page on wiki.linux-nfs.org have > > been quite helpful bringing me up to speed. If any of you have > > advice or guidance or can clarify my understanding of how the > > call/reply RPC mechanism works I appreciate it. > > Seems like you understand it. Do you have specific questions? > Is it true that for each RPC call there is an RPC reply with the same xid? Is it a-priori an error if an otherwise correct RPC call is not eventually paired with an RPC reply? Thank you, -A -- Alan Post | Xen VPS hosting for the technically adept PO Box 61688 | Sunnyvale, CA 94088-1681 | https://prgmr.com/ email: adp@prgmr.com