Re: 3.0+ NFS issues (bisected)

[J. Bruce Fields]

On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 10:49:31AM +0400, Michael Tokarev wrote:
> On 18.08.2012 02:32, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 04:08:07PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> >> Wait a minute, that assumption's a problem because that calculation
> >> depends in part on xpt_reserved, which is changed here....
> >>
> >> In particular, svc_xprt_release() calls svc_reserve(rqstp, 0), which
> >> subtracts rqstp->rq_reserved and then calls svc_xprt_enqueue, now with a
> >> lower xpt_reserved value.  That could well explain this.
> > 
> > So, maybe something like this?
> 
> Well.  What can I say?  With the change below applied (to 3.2 kernel
> at least), I don't see any stalls or high CPU usage on the server
> anymore.  It survived several multi-gigabyte transfers, for several
> hours, without any problem.  So it is a good step forward ;)
> 
> But the whole thing seems to be quite a bit fragile.  I tried to follow
> the logic in there, and the thing is quite a bit, well, "twisted", and
> somewhat difficult to follow.  So I don't know if this is the right
> fix or not.  At least it works! :)

Suggestions welcomed.

> And I really wonder why no one else reported this problem before.
> Is me the only one in this world who uses linux nfsd? :)

This, for example:

	http://marc.info/?l=linux-nfs&m=134131915612287&w=2

may well describe the same problem....  It just needed some debugging
persistence, thanks!

--b.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/