From: "bfields@fieldses.org" <bfields@fieldses.org>
To: Trond Myklebust <trondmy@hammerspace.com>
Cc: "linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org" <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>,
"bfields@redhat.com" <bfields@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] SUNRPC/cache: Allow garbage collection of invalid cache entries
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2020 13:18:17 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200207181817.GC17036@fieldses.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8dc1ed17de98e4b59fb9e408692c152456863a20.camel@hammerspace.com>
On Fri, Feb 07, 2020 at 02:25:27PM +0000, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> On Thu, 2020-02-06 at 11:33 -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 11:57:38AM -0500, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> > > If the cache entry never gets initialised, we want the garbage
> > > collector to be able to evict it. Otherwise if the upcall daemon
> > > fails to initialise the entry, we end up never expiring it.
> >
> > Could you tell us more about what motivated this?
> >
> > It's causing failures on pynfs server-reboot tests. I haven't pinned
> > down the cause yet, but it looks like it could be a regression to the
> > behavior Kinglong Mee describes in detail in his original patch.
> >
>
> Can you point me to the tests that are failing?
I'm basically doing
./nfs4.1/testserver.py myserver:/path reboot
--serverhelper=examples/server_helper.sh
--serverhelperarg=myserver
For all I know at this point, the change could be exposing a pynfs-side
bug.
> The motivation here is to allow the garbage collector to do its job of
> evicting cache entries after they are supposed to have timed out.
Understood. I was curious whether this was found by code inspection or
because you'd run across a case where the leak was causing a practical
problem.
--b.
> The fact that uninitialised cache entries are given an infinite
> lifetime, and are never evicted is a de facto memory leak if, for
> instance, the mountd daemon ignores the cache request, or the downcall
> in expkey_parse() or svc_export_parse() fails without being able to
> update the request.
>
> The threads that are waiting for the cache replies already have a
> mechanism for dealing with timeouts (with cache_wait_req() and
> deferred requests), so the question is what is so special about
> uninitialised requests that we have to leak them in order to avoid a
> problem with reboot?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-02-07 18:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-01-14 16:57 [PATCH] SUNRPC/cache: Allow garbage collection of invalid cache entries Trond Myklebust
2020-02-06 16:33 ` J. Bruce Fields
2020-02-07 14:25 ` Trond Myklebust
2020-02-07 18:18 ` bfields [this message]
2020-02-10 18:47 ` Trond Myklebust
2020-03-26 20:40 ` bfields
2020-03-26 21:42 ` Trond Myklebust
2020-03-27 1:50 ` J. Bruce Fields
2020-03-27 12:33 ` Trond Myklebust
2020-03-27 15:53 ` [PATCH] SUNRPC/cache: don't allow invalid entries to be flushed J. Bruce Fields
2020-03-27 16:15 ` Chuck Lever
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20200207181817.GC17036@fieldses.org \
--to=bfields@fieldses.org \
--cc=bfields@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=trondmy@hammerspace.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).