lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Jun]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Kernel 3.4.X NFS server regression
On Mon, 11 Jun 2012 08:16:34 -0400
bfields <bfields@fieldses.org> wrote:

> On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 03:00:42PM +0000, Myklebust, Trond wrote:
> > Cc: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org + bfields and changing title to label it
> > as a server regression since that is what the trace appears to imply.
> >
> > On Sun, 2012-06-10 at 12:56 +0200, Joerg Platte wrote:
> > > All 3.4 kernels I tried so far (3.4, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2) suffer from the
> > > same NFS related problem:
> > >
> > > Jun 10 09:23:36 coco kernel: INFO: task kworker/u:1:8 blocked for more
> > > than 120 seconds.
> > > Jun 10 09:23:36 coco kernel: "echo 0 >
> > > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this message.
> > > Jun 10 09:23:36 coco kernel: kworker/u:1 D 002ba28c 0 8
> > > 2 0x00000000
> > > Jun 10 09:23:36 coco kernel: df465ec0 00000046 00000005 002ba28c
> > > 00000000 0000000a 00000282 df465e70
> > > Jun 10 09:23:36 coco kernel: df465ec0 df44d2b0 ffff6b60 df465e84
> > > df44d2b0 e33fa6b3 00000282 de764ae0
> > > Jun 10 09:23:36 coco kernel: ffffffff d78bcfb8 df465e8c c012e0f6
> > > df465ea4 c013610c 00000000 d78bcf80
> > > Jun 10 09:23:36 coco kernel: Call Trace:
> > > Jun 10 09:23:36 coco kernel: [<c012e0f6>] ? add_timer+0x11/0x17
> > > Jun 10 09:23:36 coco kernel: [<c013610c>] ? queue_delayed_work_on+0x74/0xf0
> > > Jun 10 09:23:36 coco kernel: [<c0136ba4>] ? queue_delayed_work+0x1b/0x28
> > > Jun 10 09:23:36 coco kernel: [<c0350f5b>] schedule+0x1d/0x4c
> > > Jun 10 09:23:36 coco kernel: [<e0cda5f1>] cld_pipe_upcall+0x4e/0x75 [nfsd]
> > > Jun 10 09:23:36 coco kernel: [<e0cda678>]
> > > nfsd4_cld_grace_done+0x60/0x99 [nfsd]
> > > Jun 10 09:23:36 coco kernel: [<e0cd9cb5>]
> > > nfsd4_record_grace_done+0x10/0x12 [nfsd]
> > > Jun 10 09:23:36 coco kernel: [<e0cd6696>] laundromat_main+0x291/0x2d8
> > > [nfsd]
> > > Jun 10 09:23:36 coco kernel: [<c0136d2f>] process_one_work+0xff/0x325
> > > Jun 10 09:23:36 coco kernel: [<c0134bec>] ? start_worker+0x20/0x23
> > > Jun 10 09:23:36 coco kernel: [<e0cd6405>] ?
> > > nfsd4_process_open1+0x32b/0x32b [nfsd]
> > > Jun 10 09:23:36 coco kernel: [<c013727a>] worker_thread+0xf4/0x39a
> > > Jun 10 09:23:36 coco kernel: [<c0137186>] ? rescuer_thread+0x231/0x231
> > > Jun 10 09:23:36 coco kernel: [<c013a556>] kthread+0x6c/0x6e
> > > Jun 10 09:23:36 coco kernel: [<c013a4ea>] ? kthreadd+0xe8/0xe8
> > > Jun 10 09:23:36 coco kernel: [<c035263e>] kernel_thread_helper+0x6/0xd
> > >
> > > A kworker task is stuck in D state and nfs mounts from other clients do
> > > not work at all. This happens only on one machine, another one with the
> > > same kernel (same self compiled Debian package) works. All previous 3.3
> > > kernels work as well.
> > >
> > > Since this machine is remote it is not that easy to bisect to find the
> > > bad commit. Are there any other things I can try?
>
> If you create a directory named /var/lib/nfs/v4recovery/, does the
> problem go away?
>
> My guess would be that it's trying to upcall to the new reboot-recovery
> state daemon, and you don't have that running.
>
> Before the addition of that upcall state was kept in
> /var/lib/nfs/v4recovery. So we decide whether to use the old method or
> the new one by checking for the existance of that path.
>
> But I'm guessing we were wrong to assume that existing setups that
> people perceived as working would have that path, because the failures
> in the absence of that path were probably less obvious.
>
> --b.

This sounds like the same problem that Hans reported as well. I've not
been able to reproduce that so far. Here's what I get when I start nfsd
with no v4recoverdir and nfsdcld isn't running:

[ 109.715080] NFSD: starting 90-second grace period
[ 229.984220] NFSD: Unable to end grace period: -110

What I don't quite understand is why the queue_timeout job isn't
getting run here. What should happen is that 30s after upcall,
rpc_timeout_upcall_queue should run. The message will be found to be
still sitting on the , so it should set its status to -ETIMEDOUT
and wake up the caller.

I can only assume that the queue_timeout job isn't getting run for some
reason, but I'm unclear on why that would be.

--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-06-11 15:23    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site