Received: by 2002:a25:e74b:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id e72csp1100506ybh; Mon, 13 Jul 2020 09:19:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzactzozExTiC3Y48P4utuA+GqRjL29x0d/LN3xF1AhvBG8xECI66X1KLPfnNIaHVYVsGLE X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:3138:: with SMTP id dd24mr215861edb.118.1594657150308; Mon, 13 Jul 2020 09:19:10 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1594657150; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=VsH5tvl3ILOFoIyytQwhdDoMPAyIub/XzmrL+yFMMzt9BN8kGLUNdLrBXfQbK/8dZw qvp08yvxKVg+TvJpe2rz/1S84UE8OASrhRnLIyclEhY+mwEvgpVfBtbkx//DEXeqyxsI LgJvapiVj0+kaFQf4zwBJ90NDDCbIBVS1yHlpzjrcapAIrJrg1gBw38Grs8cybS2ioZk gjnuP9DSCXf2EKvffmwrWbOW4ZoYnhglONbpkkwrhPtfNpJHI2GS1IPei4tutxcnvrAO M6DqRfv1/wuGv8EC+2FDhLV2Zns01wwfi+Ke94mSe5WBMYdwc0S/te9/ArrVDocMBaO2 j+RQ== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:dkim-signature; bh=0Y6rgte2El9t+6CDPRdvtPyDnRuhR6VQIPtQ359O8+w=; b=yIBTRCHg4fKCrfikweYt8AALgWCx9XqSEGFg/YV8t2ttX08RoxuzjXx7AXGEDRL2c3 Ppie3fuJY/81WnI/jW2lUBcsf9rziTj0Xn2buXCx6QRvK5Z3EDXguMJlbov9/HDRY8Wp aqUihl81hTysD7vpaNIVBZ+JQLHwo+9ivP4AHzmsBxwL4jGp1H3iv/crOkSFxq4818eO Izahphw2aQ/yS1LFGs5ieKv8UXPBLHXpWs2k1cVUBvXdVvkLv+n89/fNfcA1JnLO1GsZ DAnPkN/tkfyNdzRkbfKXZdPfY8MzerAgNk+F+rBFb/7OcXukbN4k7bPhvjw9hO+Cjz8j eo1A== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com header.s=20161025 header.b=J81pxXSu; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [23.128.96.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id c10si9252325ejs.1.2020.07.13.09.18.45; Mon, 13 Jul 2020 09:19:10 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com header.s=20161025 header.b=J81pxXSu; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729826AbgGMQSo (ORCPT + 99 others); Mon, 13 Jul 2020 12:18:44 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:46550 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729835AbgGMQSo (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Jul 2020 12:18:44 -0400 Received: from mail-ed1-x544.google.com (mail-ed1-x544.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::544]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CE6F8C061755 for ; Mon, 13 Jul 2020 09:18:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ed1-x544.google.com with SMTP id bm28so12185788edb.2 for ; Mon, 13 Jul 2020 09:18:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=0Y6rgte2El9t+6CDPRdvtPyDnRuhR6VQIPtQ359O8+w=; b=J81pxXSufe59+3CTgQe4Vl4xwZYwWHshB9GFZNryYNFn4B+EQevZ0V8Hf6alsl7dcw 5Kwc/+qisH2jlDdcIkUqUOUltaBI+/plA/9QJ4MvQbqUb7AcEAKj+7PLW2VCKRO+e+qg bBGQKoFjPOVnrWJQ1olXqZFlke1U9AMqDTaio7gnhnEc2SebanoTl1MKg2ngDpEWGHo2 p7UTcRKRjreVFIA8fCLJkTENAzrz8+G1rZoiMeoPKLxOE0XO97j2aXvmk3YbkBPdgYxm e385fqpIEH+7sUEGxJrPU1agxKv1nLw23+DcwW0t35CZh0biKrf8zwNpbR3URPxWPAf4 AsWg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=0Y6rgte2El9t+6CDPRdvtPyDnRuhR6VQIPtQ359O8+w=; b=PmGQjvvbp1yO3ZtXKhr7UcofLROrnXlN9zVZqjRTL+vQG7nBsyx2NKNT+uf26/2cAq gpvMmMair6FAwMiy/cnkVbT6ZX2tiXFyedy58d+6WbvKVNAwqELSxB4bFISK1Y8JjTlN Xe6eu5V55MRu4PkS2g0S1/1RuJy7obBHYZqD1s2w0qdMCo0NfPs397UOXGMwZ5u8mHLk QXRg+vjWlwPcr+P8r6kLhWSPl84XqY19Alt40p6xQb2a6TVRsmlnL0XxaJw1a+MTjjoN cTjb95Kr4u4P6HFmGLy40CuCgMpuisj7jae/QYvVRNkRyPeZsowwa8Y0Q6TNr2Ar/ACi xMYA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5309r5WNhKG32/VTHyIpHTbqFcN0P0z/bh7kWoh7TvcCFwOIRtMe SDPeh4rzxBSU2/BQh9gDVRYvF+kaWdJMxGL7TfM= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:2065:: with SMTP id bd5mr169238edb.67.1594657122346; Mon, 13 Jul 2020 09:18:42 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200708210514.84671-1-olga.kornievskaia@gmail.com> <41873966ea839cca97332df3c56612441f840e0d.camel@hammerspace.com> <3fe49121d027eaa3aa2263f24d76d72e750d8592.camel@hammerspace.com> In-Reply-To: From: Olga Kornievskaia Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2020 12:18:31 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] SUNRPC dont update timeout value on connection reset To: Trond Myklebust Cc: "linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org" , "anna.schumaker@netapp.com" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 9:47 AM Trond Myklebust wrote: > > Hi Olga > > On Fri, 2020-07-10 at 14:40 -0400, Olga Kornievskaia wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 1:35 PM Olga Kornievskaia > > wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 5:07 PM Olga Kornievskaia > > > wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 1:19 PM Trond Myklebust < > > > > trondmy@hammerspace.com> wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 2020-07-09 at 11:43 -0400, Olga Kornievskaia wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 8:08 AM Trond Myklebust < > > > > > > trondmy@hammerspace.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Olga > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 2020-07-08 at 17:05 -0400, Olga Kornievskaia wrote: > > > > > > > > Current behaviour: every time a v3 operation is re-sent > > > > > > > > to the > > > > > > > > server > > > > > > > > we update (double) the timeout. There is no distinction > > > > > > > > between > > > > > > > > whether > > > > > > > > or not the previous timer had expired before the re-sent > > > > > > > > happened. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here's the scenario: > > > > > > > > 1. Client sends a v3 operation > > > > > > > > 2. Server RST-s the connection (prior to the timeout) > > > > > > > > (eg., > > > > > > > > connection > > > > > > > > is immediately reset) > > > > > > > > 3. Client re-sends a v3 operation but the timeout is now > > > > > > > > 120sec. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As a result, an application sees 2mins pause before a > > > > > > > > retry in > > > > > > > > case > > > > > > > > server again does not reply. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Instead, this patch proposes to keep track off when the > > > > > > > > minor > > > > > > > > timeout > > > > > > > > should happen and if it didn't, then don't update the new > > > > > > > > timeout. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Olga Kornievskaia > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > include/linux/sunrpc/xprt.h | 1 + > > > > > > > > net/sunrpc/xprt.c | 11 +++++++++++ > > > > > > > > 2 files changed, 12 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/sunrpc/xprt.h > > > > > > > > b/include/linux/sunrpc/xprt.h > > > > > > > > index e64bd82..a603d48 100644 > > > > > > > > --- a/include/linux/sunrpc/xprt.h > > > > > > > > +++ b/include/linux/sunrpc/xprt.h > > > > > > > > @@ -101,6 +101,7 @@ struct rpc_rqst { > > > > > > > > * > > > > > > > > used in > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > softirq. > > > > > > > > */ > > > > > > > > unsigned long rq_majortimeo; /* major > > > > > > > > timeout > > > > > > > > alarm */ > > > > > > > > + unsigned long rq_minortimeo; /* minor > > > > > > > > timeout > > > > > > > > alarm */ > > > > > > > > unsigned long rq_timeout; /* Current > > > > > > > > timeout > > > > > > > > value */ > > > > > > > > ktime_t rq_rtt; /* round- > > > > > > > > trip time > > > > > > > > */ > > > > > > > > unsigned int rq_retries; /* # of > > > > > > > > retries */ > > > > > > > > diff --git a/net/sunrpc/xprt.c b/net/sunrpc/xprt.c > > > > > > > > index d5cc5db..c0ce232 100644 > > > > > > > > --- a/net/sunrpc/xprt.c > > > > > > > > +++ b/net/sunrpc/xprt.c > > > > > > > > @@ -607,6 +607,11 @@ static void > > > > > > > > xprt_reset_majortimeo(struct > > > > > > > > rpc_rqst *req) > > > > > > > > req->rq_majortimeo += xprt_calc_majortimeo(req); > > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +static void xprt_reset_minortimeo(struct rpc_rqst *req) > > > > > > > > +{ > > > > > > > > + req->rq_minortimeo = jiffies + req->rq_timeout; > > > > > > > > +} > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > static void xprt_init_majortimeo(struct rpc_task *task, > > > > > > > > struct > > > > > > > > rpc_rqst *req) > > > > > > > > { > > > > > > > > unsigned long time_init; > > > > > > > > @@ -618,6 +623,7 @@ static void > > > > > > > > xprt_init_majortimeo(struct > > > > > > > > rpc_task > > > > > > > > *task, struct rpc_rqst *req) > > > > > > > > time_init = xprt_abs_ktime_to_jiffies(task- > > > > > > > > > tk_start); > > > > > > > > req->rq_timeout = task->tk_client->cl_timeout- > > > > > > > > >to_initval; > > > > > > > > req->rq_majortimeo = time_init + > > > > > > > > xprt_calc_majortimeo(req); > > > > > > > > + req->rq_minortimeo = time_init + req->rq_timeout; > > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > /** > > > > > > > > @@ -631,6 +637,10 @@ int xprt_adjust_timeout(struct > > > > > > > > rpc_rqst > > > > > > > > *req) > > > > > > > > const struct rpc_timeout *to = req->rq_task- > > > > > > > > >tk_client- > > > > > > > > > cl_timeout; > > > > > > > > int status = 0; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + if (time_before(jiffies, req->rq_minortimeo)) { > > > > > > > > + xprt_reset_minortimeo(req); > > > > > > > > + return status; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shouldn't this case be just returning without updating the > > > > > > > timeout? > > > > > > > After all, this is the case where nothing has expired yet. > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we perhaps should readjust the minor timeout every > > > > > > here but I > > > > > > can't figure out what the desired behaviour should be. When > > > > > > should we > > > > > > consider it's appropriate to double the timer. Consider the > > > > > > following: > > > > > > > > > > > > time1: v3 op sent > > > > > > time1+50s: server RSTs > > > > > > We check that it's not yet the minor timeout (time1+60s) > > > > > > time1+50s: v3 op re-sent (say we don't reset the minor > > > > > > timeout to be > > > > > > current time+60s) > > > > > > time1+60s: server RSTs > > > > > > Client will resend the op but now it's past the initial minor > > > > > > timeout > > > > > > so the timeout will be doubled. Is that what we really want? > > > > > > Maybe it > > > > > > is. > > > > > > Say now the server RSTs the connection again (shortly after > > > > > > or in > > > > > > less > > > > > > than 60s), since we are not updating the minor timeout value, > > > > > > then > > > > > > the > > > > > > client will again modify the timeout before resending. Is > > > > > > that Ok? > > > > > > > > > > > > That's why my reasoning was that at every re-evaluation of > > > > > > the > > > > > > timeout > > > > > > value, we have the minor timeout set for current time+60s and > > > > > > we get > > > > > > an RST within it then we don't modify the timeout value. > > > > > > > > > > So a couple of issues with that: > > > > > > > > > > The first is that a series of RST calls could cause the timeout > > > > > to get > > > > > pushed to the max value fairly quickly (btw, > > > > > xprt_reset_minortimeo() > > > > > does not enforce a limit right now). > > > > > > > > > > The second is that we end up pushing out the major timeout > > > > > value, since > > > > > the major timeout cannot occur unless the value of jiffies is > > > > > after the > > > > > minor timeout (which keeps changing on each pass). > > > > > > > > But dont we want to push out the major timeout? > > > > > > > > Actually i think, back in my example of getting the RST, at > > > > (time1+50s). shouldn't minor_timeo and majortimeo be reset to > > > > currenttime+appropriate value of minor/major? If we are > > > > evaluating > > > > the timer and the time difference between when the operation was > > > > sent > > > > and now is less than 60s, we shouldn't say a timeout has > > > > occurried > > > > (it's a pre-mature timeout) and thus its value shouldn't be > > > > modified. > > > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > Do you feel that the following approach is incorrect? Sry it's just > > > cut-and-paste but the logic is there. Thank you. > > > > Scratch this... So with this we'd never timeout an operation at all. > > I think the ideal solution would respect the fact that most sysadmins > who read the nfs manpage assume that timeouts are a predictable > feature, and that if I set timeo=600, retrans=2, for a TCP mount, then > the minor timeouts will occur 60s, and 180s (60+120) after the RPC call > was initially attempted sent, and then the first major timeout will > occur 360s (60+120+180) after the RPC call was initially attempted > sent. > i.e. the timeouts are calculated relative to the time at which the RPC > call was initially attempted transmitted. > > If we start extending any one of those timeouts, then things like soft > mounts become unpredictable, and we no longer control when the EIO is > going to be reported to the application. This has been a source of > complaints from users in the past. Thanks Trond. I re-submitted the patch with your initial suggestion. > > > diff --git a/include/linux/sunrpc/xprt.h > > > b/include/linux/sunrpc/xprt.h > > > index e64bd82..a603d48 100644 > > > --- a/include/linux/sunrpc/xprt.h > > > +++ b/include/linux/sunrpc/xprt.h > > > @@ -101,6 +101,7 @@ struct rpc_rqst { > > > * used in the softirq. > > > */ > > > unsigned long rq_majortimeo; /* major timeout alarm */ > > > + unsigned long rq_minortimeo; /* minor timeout alarm */ > > > unsigned long rq_timeout; /* Current timeout value */ > > > ktime_t rq_rtt; /* round-trip time */ > > > unsigned int rq_retries; /* # of retries */ > > > diff --git a/net/sunrpc/xprt.c b/net/sunrpc/xprt.c > > > index d5cc5db..66d412b 100644 > > > --- a/net/sunrpc/xprt.c > > > +++ b/net/sunrpc/xprt.c > > > @@ -607,6 +607,11 @@ static void xprt_reset_majortimeo(struct > > > rpc_rqst *req) > > > req->rq_majortimeo += xprt_calc_majortimeo(req); > > > } > > > > > > +static void xprt_reset_minortimeo(struct rpc_rqst *req) > > > +{ > > > + req->rq_minortimeo = jiffies + req->rq_timeout; > > > +} > > > + > > > static void xprt_init_majortimeo(struct rpc_task *task, struct > > > rpc_rqst *req) > > > { > > > unsigned long time_init; > > > @@ -618,6 +623,7 @@ static void xprt_init_majortimeo(struct > > > rpc_task > > > *task, struct rpc_rqst *req) > > > time_init = xprt_abs_ktime_to_jiffies(task->tk_start); > > > req->rq_timeout = task->tk_client->cl_timeout->to_initval; > > > req->rq_majortimeo = time_init + xprt_calc_majortimeo(req); > > > + req->rq_minortimeo = time_init + req->rq_timeout; > > > } > > > > > > /** > > > @@ -631,6 +637,11 @@ int xprt_adjust_timeout(struct rpc_rqst *req) > > > const struct rpc_timeout *to = req->rq_task->tk_client- > > > >cl_timeout; > > > int status = 0; > > > > > > + if (time_before(jiffies, req->rq_minortimeo)) { > > > + req->rq_majortimeo = jiffies + xprt_calc_majortimeo(req); > > > + req->rq_minortimeo = jiffies + req->rq_timeout; > > > + return status; > > > + } > > > if (time_before(jiffies, req->rq_majortimeo)) { > > > if (to->to_exponential) > > > req->rq_timeout <<= 1; > > > @@ -649,6 +660,7 @@ int xprt_adjust_timeout(struct rpc_rqst *req) > > > spin_unlock(&xprt->transport_lock); > > > status = -ETIMEDOUT; > > > } > > > + xprt_reset_minortimeo(req); > > > > > > if (req->rq_timeout == 0) { > > > printk(KERN_WARNING "xprt_adjust_timeout: rq_timeout = 0!\n"); > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > + } > > > > > > > > if (time_before(jiffies, req->rq_majortimeo)) { > > > > > > > > if (to->to_exponential) > > > > > > > > req->rq_timeout <<= 1; > > > > > > > > @@ -638,6 +648,7 @@ int xprt_adjust_timeout(struct > > > > > > > > rpc_rqst *req) > > > > > > > > req->rq_timeout += to- > > > > > > > > >to_increment; > > > > > > > > if (to->to_maxval && req->rq_timeout >= to- > > > > > > > > > to_maxval) > > > > > > > > req->rq_timeout = to->to_maxval; > > > > > > > > + xprt_reset_minortimeo(req); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...and then perhaps this can just be moved out of the > > > > > > > time_before() > > > > > > > condition, since it looks to me as if we also want to reset > > > > > > > req- > > > > > > > > rq_minortimeo when a major timeout occurs. > > > > > > > > req->rq_retries++; > > > > > > > > } else { > > > > > > > > req->rq_timeout = to->to_initval; > > > > > > -- > Trond Myklebust > Linux NFS client maintainer, Hammerspace > trond.myklebust@hammerspace.com > >