From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:45475 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754266AbcGTPBb (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Jul 2016 11:01:31 -0400 From: "Benjamin Coddington" To: "Trond Myklebust" Cc: "hch@infradead.org" , "List Linux" Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 24/28] Getattr doesn't require data sync semantics Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 11:03:06 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: <1467844205-76852-19-git-send-email-trond.myklebust@primarydata.com> <1467844205-76852-20-git-send-email-trond.myklebust@primarydata.com> <1467844205-76852-21-git-send-email-trond.myklebust@primarydata.com> <1467844205-76852-22-git-send-email-trond.myklebust@primarydata.com> <1467844205-76852-23-git-send-email-trond.myklebust@primarydata.com> <1467844205-76852-24-git-send-email-trond.myklebust@primarydata.com> <1467844205-76852-25-git-send-email-trond.myklebust@primarydata.com> <20160718034847.GA1195@infradead.org> <1468817945.5273.2.camel@primarydata.com> <20160719035843.GA24437@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 19 Jul 2016, at 16:06, Trond Myklebust wrote: >> On Jul 19, 2016, at 16:00, Benjamin Coddington >> wrote: >> >> On 18 Jul 2016, at 23:58, hch@infradead.org wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 04:59:09AM +0000, Trond Myklebust wrote: >>>> Actually... The problem might be that a previous attribute update >>>> is >>>> marking the attribute cache as being revalidated. Does the >>>> following >>>> patch help? >>> >>> It doesn't. Also with your most recent linux-next branch the test >>> now cause the systems to OOM with or without your patch (with mine >>> it's >>> still fine). I tested with your writeback branch from about two or >>> three days ago before, and with that + your patch it also 'just >>> fails' >>> and doesn't OOM. Looks like whatever causes the bug also creates >>> a temporarily memory leak when combined with recent changes from >>> your >>> tree, most likely something from the pnfs branch. >> >> I couldn't find the memory leak using kmemleak, but it OOMs pretty >> quick. If I >> insert an mdelay(200) just after the lookup_again: marker in >> pnfs_update_layout() it doesn't OOM, but it seems stuck forever in a >> loop on >> that marker: >> >> [ 1230.635586] pnfs_find_alloc_layout Begin ino=ffff88003ef986f8 >> layout=ffff8800392bca58 >> [ 1230.636729] pnfs_find_lseg:Begin >> [ 1230.637538] pnfs_find_lseg:Return lseg (null) ref 0 >> [ 1230.638582] --> send_layoutget >> [ 1230.639499] --> nfs4_proc_layoutget >> [ 1230.640525] --> nfs4_layoutget_prepare >> [ 1230.641479] --> nfs41_setup_sequence >> [ 1230.641581] <-- nfs4_proc_layoutget status=-512 >> [ 1230.643288] --> nfs4_alloc_slot used_slots=0000 >> highest_used=4294967295 max_slots=31 >> [ 1230.644348] <-- nfs4_alloc_slot used_slots=0001 highest_used=0 >> slotid=0 >> [ 1230.645373] <-- nfs41_setup_sequence slotid=0 seqid=4376 >> [ 1230.646356] <-- nfs4_layoutget_prepare >> [ 1230.647357] encode_sequence: sessionid=1468956665:2:3:0 seqid=4376 >> slotid=0 max_slotid=0 cache_this=0 >> [ 1230.648522] encode_layoutget: 1st type:0x5 iomode:2 off:122880 >> len:4096 mc:4096 >> [ 1230.650182] decode_layoutget roff:122880 rlen:4096 riomode:2, >> lo_type:0x5, lo.len:48 >> [ 1230.651331] --> nfs4_layoutget_done >> [ 1230.652233] --> nfs4_alloc_slot used_slots=0001 highest_used=0 >> max_slots=31 >> [ 1230.653409] <-- nfs4_alloc_slot used_slots=0003 highest_used=1 >> slotid=1 >> [ 1230.654547] nfs4_free_slot: slotid 1 highest_used_slotid 0 >> [ 1230.655606] nfs41_sequence_done: Error 0 free the slot >> [ 1230.656635] nfs4_free_slot: slotid 0 highest_used_slotid >> 4294967295 >> [ 1230.657739] <-- nfs4_layoutget_done >> [ 1230.658650] --> nfs4_layoutget_release >> [ 1230.659626] <-- nfs4_layoutget_release >> >> This debug output is identical for every cycle of the loop. Have to >> stop for the >> day.. more tomorrow. >> >> Ben >> > > Duh… It’s this patch: pNFS: Fix post-layoutget error handling in > pnfs_update_layout() > We have to pass through fatal errors… I’ll fix it. That's indeed fixed it up, and generic/207 passes now. Thanks! Ben