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;
Date:   Thu, 17 Sep 2020 15:09:31 -0400
From:   bfields <bfields@fieldses.org>
To:     Daire Byrne <daire@dneg.com>
Cc:     linux-nfs <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-cachefs <linux-cachefs@redhat.com>,
        Frank van der Linden <fllinden@amazon.com>
Subject: Re: Adventures in NFS re-exporting
Message-ID: <20200917190931.GA6858@fieldses.org>
References: <943482310.31162206.1599499860595.JavaMail.zimbra@dneg.com>
 <20200915172140.GA32632@fieldses.org>
 <2001715792.39705019.1600358470997.JavaMail.zimbra@dneg.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <2001715792.39705019.1600358470997.JavaMail.zimbra@dneg.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 05:01:11PM +0100, Daire Byrne wrote:
> 
> ----- On 15 Sep, 2020, at 18:21, bfields bfields@fieldses.org wrote:
> 
> >> 4) With an NFSv4 re-export, lots of open/close requests (hundreds per
> >> second) quickly eat up the CPU on the re-export server and perf top
> >> shows we are mostly in native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath.
> > 
> > Any statistics on who's calling that function?
> 
> I've always struggled to reproduce this with a simple open/close simulation, so I suspect some other operations need to be mixed in too. But I have one production workload that I know has lots of opens & closes (buggy software) included in amongst the usual reads, writes etc.
> 
> With just 40 clients mounting the reexport server (v5.7.6) using NFSv4.2, we see the CPU of the nfsd threads increase rapidly and by the time we have 100 clients, we have maxed out the 32 cores of the server with most of that in native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath.

That sounds a lot like what Frank Van der Linden reported:

	https://lore.kernel.org/linux-nfs/20200608192122.GA19171@dev-dsk-fllinden-2c-c1893d73.us-west-2.amazon.com/

It looks like a bug in the filehandle caching code.

--b.

> 
> The perf top summary looks like this:
> 
> # Overhead  Command          Shared Object                 Symbol                                                 
> # ........  ...............  ............................  .......................................................
> #
>     82.91%  nfsd             [kernel.kallsyms]             [k] native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath
>      8.24%  swapper          [kernel.kallsyms]             [k] intel_idle
>      4.66%  nfsd             [kernel.kallsyms]             [k] __list_lru_walk_one
>      0.80%  nfsd             [kernel.kallsyms]             [k] nfsd_file_lru_cb
> 
> And the call graph (not sure how this will format):
> 
> - nfsd
>    - 89.34% svc_process
>       - 88.94% svc_process_common
>          - 88.87% nfsd_dispatch
>             - 88.82% nfsd4_proc_compound
>                - 53.97% nfsd4_open
>                   - 53.95% nfsd4_process_open2
>                      - 53.87% nfs4_get_vfs_file
>                         - 53.48% nfsd_file_acquire
>                            - 33.31% nfsd_file_lru_walk_list
>                               - 33.28% list_lru_walk_node                    
>                                  - 33.28% list_lru_walk_one                  
>                                     - 30.21% _raw_spin_lock
>                                        - 30.21% queued_spin_lock_slowpath
>                                             30.20% native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath
>                                       2.46% __list_lru_walk_one
>                            - 19.39% list_lru_add
>                               - 19.39% _raw_spin_lock
>                                  - 19.39% queued_spin_lock_slowpath
>                                       19.38% native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath
>                - 34.46% nfsd4_close
>                   - 34.45% nfs4_put_stid
>                      - 34.45% nfs4_free_ol_stateid
>                         - 34.45% release_all_access
>                            - 34.45% nfs4_file_put_access
>                               - 34.45% __nfs4_file_put_access.part.81
>                                  - 34.45% nfsd_file_put
>                                     - 34.44% nfsd_file_lru_walk_list
>                                        - 34.40% list_lru_walk_node
>                                           - 34.40% list_lru_walk_one
>                                              - 31.27% _raw_spin_lock
>                                                 - 31.27% queued_spin_lock_slowpath
>                                                      31.26% native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath
>                                                2.50% __list_lru_walk_one
>                                                0.50% nfsd_file_lru_cb
> 
> 
> The original NFS server is mounted by the reexport server using NFSv4.2. As soon as we switch the clients to mount the reexport server with NFSv3, the high CPU usage goes away and we start to see expected performance for this workload and server hardware.
> 
> I'm happy to share perf data or anything else that is useful and I can repeatedly run this production load as required.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Daire