On Tuesday December 11, [email protected] wrote:
> Neil Brown wrote:
> > Debian has /etc/init.d/bootclean which contains:
> > cd /var/run ; .....
> > ....
> > find . ! -xtype d ! -name utmp ! -name innd.pid \
> > -print0 | xargs -0r rm -f -- \
> > || ....
> > so any files except a select few are removed.
> > SLES has /etc/init.d/boot.cleanup which has
> > find /var/run /var/lock -type f -print0 | xargs -0 -r rm -f 2>/dev/null
> > so again, all files get removed.
> > You seem to be saying that Redhat requires everything in /var/run to
> > be explicitly cleaned up ??? Aren't standards wonderful :-)
> That appears to be the case... on both Fedora and RHEL...
So after a crash and reboot there are lots of .pid file lying around
from processes that obviously don't exist any more. That's sad.
What about /var/lock? That is arguably a better place to put it
Does /var/lock get cleaned of old files at reboot?
> >>> And I think the point of the lock file was the sm-notify would only
> >>> run once per reboot.
> >> Why impose a limit? Why not recover lock at any point?
> > You only want to recover locks when they have been lost. Boot time is
> > that time.
> 99.9% of time, I agree. But there are times when services are
> restarted without reboots.
True. We need to make sure that when lockd is restarted, the
sm-notify lock file is removed. It's a shame that everyone roles
their own init.d files so we cannot usefully distribute something in
> > The particular situation I wanted to handle was that I wanted it to be
> > OK to start statd at any time. And I wanted sm-notify to run at boot
> > time if possible, but also to be run when statd was started if it
> > hadn't run already.
> > An 'I have run already' file in /var/run seemed the obvious solution.
> I now do see the logical... But the fact that a file does or does
> not exist so should not be the deciding factor of whether a lock is
> or is not recovered. Shouldn't be the existence (or non-existence)
> of a lock that governs whether a lock is or is not recovered?
Maybe... let's think it through.
sm-notify meets to needs.
1/ It tells clients that the server has lost locks, and that they
could recover them.
2/ It tells servers that the client has dropped locks, and it should
drop all locks from that server too.
For '1', it is probably safe to ask a client to reclaim locks at any
time. I cannot see an obvious problem, but I would want to test it to
be sure. I think this it is possible for a server to tell if a given
client is currently holding locks or not.
For '2', it is only safe to tell a server to drop locks if you are
certain you don't currently hold any locks on that server. I cannot
think how you would manage that. I don't think there is anything in
/proc/locks that would tell you.
If you want a more direct connection between lockd being restarted and
sm-notify running, I think you would need to get lockd to record when
it restarted and make that information available somewhere. And
sm-notify would record when it last ran. And you would compare those
> >>> But I think that removing the lock file when sm-notify completes is
> >>> wrong.
> >> A side effect of all this is if rpc.statd is restarted and that
> >> file is not cleaned up the client will never even try to recover any locks.
> >> That's definitely not a good thing... imho...
> > There is no need for a client to recover locks if statd is restarted
> > (is there). I think statd now stores all state in /var/lib/nfs/* so
> > if it is killed and restarted, it should pick up exactly where it left
> > off.
> But if the 'nfslock' service is restarted (i.e. service nfslock restart),
> at least in Fedora and RHEL, the locks need to be reclaimed.
> Of course the init script can arbitrary remove the pid file, but isn't
> there (very small) chance that a sm-notify process could be
> still running, hung up in some type of network issue?
I don't think that would matter. Having two "sm-notify"s running at
the same time isn't really the problem. The problem is moving things
from sm to sm.bak or updating 'state' when that is not appropriate.
> > The time that you need to notify clients is when *lockd* is
> > restarted. Or more significantly, when lockd arbitrarily drops it's
> > locks.
> > i.e. if you "kill -9" lockd, then you need to do something with
> > sm-notify and I acknowledge that isn't well documented nor is there an
> > automatic procedure to make it happen. So there is room for
> > improvement, but I don't think that running sm-notify every time that
> > statd is started is an improvement.
> Well, today, sm-notify is run every time statd is started. It just that
> sm-notify exits when the pid file exists. Instead maybe what should happen
> is sm-notify should exit when there is no work to be done (i.e. no locks
> to recover).
How would you measure whether there are locks to recover or not?
> Of course this runs the risk of causing clients to unnecessarily
> reclaiming there locks, but, imho, that's okay! Its the price of
> restarted the nfslock service, something that should not happen
> too often anyways.
> Also shouldn't there be some type of synchronization between
> statd and sm-notify? Meaning should statd wait until sm-notify
> is done doing its work (or at least creating the backup directory)?
There is. sm-notify moves stuff to the backup directory, then forks
and exits. statd waits until sm-notify forks.
I guess that if sm-notify is run separately from statd there could be
a race, though if sm-notify is configured to run separately you would
expect that is because statd won't be run for a while.... maybe there
is room for improvement there.
> >>> Note the comment in sm-notify.c:
> >>> /*
> >>> * Record pid in /var/run/sm-notify.pid
> >>> * This file should remain until a reboot, even if the
> >>> * program exits.
> >>> * If file already exists, fail.
> >>> */
> >> I guess I just don't understand why a pid file need to exist after a
> >> process is gone. Especially if its going to cause the next existence
> >> to imminently exit (potentially causing data corruption).
> >> That just does not seem very robust...
> > Maybe making look like a pid file was a mistake. I'd be OK with
> > changing the name to /var/run/sm-notify-has-run or similar. If we
> > could store in the file some reflection of the state of lockd, that
> > would be even better, but I don't think such a value is available at
> > the moment.
> Its just a pet peeve of mine for processes not to clean up after themselves.
> Leaving things around for other process to clean up just never seemed
> like a good idea to me.
Don't think of it as needing clean up. Think of it as recording
state. We often use files for one program to record state that
another program might want to access.
> > What potential for data corruption do you see?
> The nfslock service is restarted, the client locks are lost
> and no notification is sent out (because the existence of a
> pid file). This was what I was seeing when I started this thread.
So "service nfslock restart" should ensure to remove the pid file when
it sends "kill -9" to lockd?