Re: Killing process in D state on mount to dead NFS server. (when process is in fsync)

[Jeff Layton]

On Fri, 1 Aug 2014 20:50:13 -0500
Roger Heflin <rogerheflin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Doesn't NFS have an intr flag to allow kill -9 to work?   Whenever I
> have had that set it has appeared to work after about 30 seconds or
> so...without that kill -9 does not work when the nfs server is
> missing.
> 
> 

Not anymore. That mount option has been deprecated (and ignored) for
years. The code in the RPC engine will generally give up in the face of
fatal signals. In this case though, we're in uninterruptible sleep in
the bowels of the writeback code.

The problem here is not really specific to NFS, per-se -- it just
happens to be the filesystem that most people notice it on.

> 
> On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 8:21 PM, Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Fri, 1 Aug 2014 07:50:53 +1000
> > NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 31 Jul 2014 14:20:07 -0700 Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >> > Hash: SHA1
> >> >
> >> > On 07/31/2014 01:42 PM, NeilBrown wrote:
> >> > > On Thu, 31 Jul 2014 11:00:35 -0700 Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >> So, this has been asked all over the interweb for years and years, but the best answer I can find is to reboot the system or create a fake NFS server
> >> > >> somewhere with the same IP as the gone-away NFS server.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> The problem is:
> >> > >>
> >> > >> I have some mounts to an NFS server that no longer exists (crashed/powered down).
> >> > >>
> >> > >> I have some processes stuck trying to write to files open on these mounts.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> I want to kill the process and unmount.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> umount -l will make the mount go a way, sort of.  But process is still hung. umount -f complains: umount2:  Device or resource busy umount.nfs: /mnt/foo:
> >> > >> device is busy
> >> > >>
> >> > >> kill -9 does not work on process.
> >> > >
> >> > > Kill -1 should work (since about 2.6.25 or so).
> >> >
> >> > That is -[ONE], right?  Assuming so, it did not work for me.
> >>
> >> No, it was "-9" .... sorry, I really shouldn't be let out without my proof
> >> reader.
> >>
> >> However the 'stack' is sufficient to see what is going on.
> >>
> >> The problem is that it is blocked inside the "VM" well away from NFS and
> >> there is no way for NFS to say "give up and go home".
> >>
> >> I'd suggest that is a bug.   I cannot see any justification for fsync to not
> >> be killable.
> >> It wouldn't be too hard to create a patch to make it so.
> >> It would be a little harder to examine all call paths and create a
> >> convincing case that the patch was safe.
> >> It might be herculean task to convince others that it was the right thing
> >> to do.... so let's start with that one.
> >>
> >> Hi Linux-mm and fs-devel people.  What do people think of making "fsync" and
> >> variants "KILLABLE" ??
> >>
> >> I probably only need a little bit of encouragement to write a patch....
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> NeilBrown
> >>
> >
> >
> > It would be good to fix this in some fashion once and for all, and the
> > wait_on_page_writeback wait is a major source of pain for a lot of
> > people.
> >
> > So to summarize...
> >
> > The problem in a nutshell is that Ben has some cached writes to the
> > NFS server, but the server has gone away (presumably forever). The
> > question is -- how do we communicate to the kernel that that server
> > isn't coming back and that those dirty pages should be invalidated so
> > that we can umount the filesystem?
> >
> > Allowing fsync/close to be killable sounds reasonable to me as at least
> > a partial solution. Both close(2) and fsync(2) are allowed to return
> > EINTR according to the POSIX spec. Allowing a kill -9 there seems
> > like it should be fine, and maybe we ought to even consider letting it
> > be susceptible to lesser signals.
> >
> > That still leaves some open questions though...
> >
> > Is that enough to fix it? You'd still have the dirty pages lingering
> > around, right? Would a umount -f presumably work at that point?
> >
> >> >
> >> > Kernel is 3.14.4+, with some of extra patches, but probably nothing that
> >> > influences this particular behaviour.
> >> >
> >> > [root@lf1005-14010010 ~]# cat /proc/3805/stack
> >> > [<ffffffff811371ba>] sleep_on_page+0x9/0xd
> >> > [<ffffffff8113738e>] wait_on_page_bit+0x71/0x78
> >> > [<ffffffff8113769a>] filemap_fdatawait_range+0xa2/0x16d
> >> > [<ffffffff8113780e>] filemap_write_and_wait_range+0x3b/0x77
> >> > [<ffffffffa0f04734>] nfs_file_fsync+0x37/0x83 [nfs]
> >> > [<ffffffff811a8d32>] vfs_fsync_range+0x19/0x1b
> >> > [<ffffffff811a8d4b>] vfs_fsync+0x17/0x19
> >> > [<ffffffffa0f05305>] nfs_file_flush+0x6b/0x6f [nfs]
> >> > [<ffffffff81183e46>] filp_close+0x3f/0x71
> >> > [<ffffffff8119c8ae>] __close_fd+0x80/0x98
> >> > [<ffffffff81183de5>] SyS_close+0x1c/0x3e
> >> > [<ffffffff815c55f9>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
> >> > [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff
> >> > [root@lf1005-14010010 ~]# kill -1 3805
> >> > [root@lf1005-14010010 ~]# cat /proc/3805/stack
> >> > [<ffffffff811371ba>] sleep_on_page+0x9/0xd
> >> > [<ffffffff8113738e>] wait_on_page_bit+0x71/0x78
> >> > [<ffffffff8113769a>] filemap_fdatawait_range+0xa2/0x16d
> >> > [<ffffffff8113780e>] filemap_write_and_wait_range+0x3b/0x77
> >> > [<ffffffffa0f04734>] nfs_file_fsync+0x37/0x83 [nfs]
> >> > [<ffffffff811a8d32>] vfs_fsync_range+0x19/0x1b
> >> > [<ffffffff811a8d4b>] vfs_fsync+0x17/0x19
> >> > [<ffffffffa0f05305>] nfs_file_flush+0x6b/0x6f [nfs]
> >> > [<ffffffff81183e46>] filp_close+0x3f/0x71
> >> > [<ffffffff8119c8ae>] __close_fd+0x80/0x98
> >> > [<ffffffff81183de5>] SyS_close+0x1c/0x3e
> >> > [<ffffffff815c55f9>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
> >> > [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff
> >> >
> >> > Thanks,
> >> > Ben
> >> >
> >> > > If it doesn't please report the kernel version and cat /proc/$PID/stack
> >> > >
> >> > > for some processes that cannot be killed.
> >> > >
> >> > > NeilBrown
> >> > >
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Aside from bringing a fake NFS server back up on the same IP, is there any other way to get these mounts unmounted and the processes killed without
> >> > >> rebooting?
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Thanks, Ben
> >> > >>
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > - --
> >> > Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> > Candela Technologies Inc  http://www.candelatech.com
> >> >
> >> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >> > Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (GNU/Linux)
> >> > Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
> >> >
> >> > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJT2rLiAAoJELbHqkYeJT4OqPgH/0taKW6Be90c1mETZf9yeqZF
> >> > YMLZk8XC2wloEd9nVz//mXREmiu18Hc+5p7Upd4Os21J2P4PBMGV6P/9DMxxehwH
> >> > YX1HKha0EoAsbO5ILQhbLf83cRXAPEpvJPgYHrq6xjlKB8Q8OxxND37rY7kl19Zz
> >> > sdAw6GiqHICF3Hq1ATa/jvixMluDnhER9Dln3wOdAGzmmuFYqpTsV4EwzbKKqInJ
> >> > 6C15q+cq/9aYh6usN6z2qJhbHgqM9EWcPL6jOrCwX4PbC1XjKHekpFN0t9oKQClx
> >> > qSPuweMQ7fP4IBd2Ke8L/QlyOVblAKSE7t+NdrjfzLmYPzyHTyfLABR/BI053to=
> >> > =/9FJ
> >> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


-- 
Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
--
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/