Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2018 23:56:14 +0300 From: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> To: Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca> Cc: "freebsd-current@freebsd.org" <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>, Alexander Motin <mav@FreeBSD.org>, Doug Rabson <dfr@rabson.org> Subject: Re: nfsd kernel threads won't die via SIGKILL Message-ID: <20180625205614.GI2430@kib.kiev.ua> In-Reply-To: <YTOPR0101MB095352561BFA6428ACBB19FDDD4A0@YTOPR0101MB0953.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> References: <YTXPR0101MB0959B4E960B85ACAC07B819DDD740@YTXPR0101MB0959.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <20180624093330.GX2430@kib.kiev.ua> <YTOPR0101MB095352561BFA6428ACBB19FDDD4A0@YTOPR0101MB0953.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 02:04:32AM +0000, Rick Macklem wrote:
> Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> >On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 09:03:02PM +0000, Rick Macklem wrote:
> >> During testing of the pNFS server I have been frequently killing/restarting the nfsd.
> >> Once in a while, the "slave" nfsd process doesn't terminate and a "ps axHl" shows:
> >> 0 48889 1 0 20 0 5884 812 svcexit D - 0:00.01 nfsd: server
> >> 0 48889 1 0 40 0 5884 812 rpcsvc I - 0:00.00 nfsd: server
> >> ... more of the same
> >> 0 48889 1 0 40 0 5884 812 rpcsvc I - 0:00.00 nfsd: server
> >> 0 48889 1 0 -8 0 5884 812 rpcsvc I - 1:51.78 nfsd: server
> >> 0 48889 1 0 -8 0 5884 812 rpcsvc I - 2:27.75 nfsd: server
> >>
> >> You can see that the top thread (the one that was created with the process) is
> >> stuck in "D" on "svcexit".
> >> The rest of the threads are still servicing NFS RPCs. If you still have an NFS mount >>on
> >> the server, the mount continues to work and the CPU time for the last two threads
> >> slowly climbs, due to NFS RPC activity. A SIGKILL was posted for the process and
> >> these threads (created by kthread_add) are here, but the
> >> cv_wait_sig/cv_timedwait_sig never seems to return EINTR for these other >>threads.
> >>
> >> if (ismaster || (!ismaster &&
> >> 1207 grp->sg_threadcount > grp->sg_minthreads))
> >> 1208 error = cv_timedwait_sig(&st->st_cond,
> >> 1209 &grp->sg_lock, 5 * hz);
> >> 1210 else
> >> 1211 error = cv_wait_sig(&st->st_cond,
> >> 1212 &grp->sg_lock);
> >>
> >> The top thread (referred to in svc.c as "ismaster" did return from here with EINTR
> >> and has now done an msleep() here, waiting for the other threads to terminate.
> >>
> >> /* Waiting for threads to stop. */
> >> 1387 for (g = 0; g < pool->sp_groupcount; g++) {
> >> 1388 grp = &pool->sp_groups[g];
> >> 1389 mtx_lock(&grp->sg_lock);
> >> 1390 while (grp->sg_threadcount > 0)
> >> 1391 msleep(grp, &grp->sg_lock, 0, "svcexit", 0);
> >> 1392 mtx_unlock(&grp->sg_lock);
> >> 1393 }
> >>
> >> Although I can't be sure if this patch has fixed the problem because it happens
> >> intermittently, I have not seen the problem since applying this patch:
> >> --- rpc/svc.c.sav 2018-06-21 22:52:11.623955000 -0400
> >> +++ rpc/svc.c 2018-06-22 09:01:40.271803000 -0400
> >> @@ -1388,7 +1388,7 @@ svc_run(SVCPOOL *pool)
> >> grp = &pool->sp_groups[g];
> >> mtx_lock(&grp->sg_lock);
> >> while (grp->sg_threadcount > 0)
> >> - msleep(grp, &grp->sg_lock, 0, "svcexit", 0);
> >> + msleep(grp, &grp->sg_lock, 0, "svcexit", 1);
> >> mtx_unlock(&grp->sg_lock);
> >> }
> >> }
> >>
> >> As you can see, all it does is add a timeout to the msleep().
> >> I am not familiar with the signal delivery code in sleepqeue, so it probably
> >> isn't correct, but my theory is alonge the lines of...
> >>
> >> Since the msleep() doesn't have PCATCH, it does not set TDF_SINTR
> >> and if that happens before the other threads return EINTR from cv_wait_sig(),
> >> they no longer do so?
> >> And I thought that waking up from the msleep() via timeouts would maybe allow
> >> the other threads to return EINTR from cv_wait_sig()?
> >>
> >> Does this make sense? rick
> >> ps: I'll post if I see the problem again with the patch applied.
> >> pss: This is a single core i386 system, just in case that might affect this.
> >
> >No, the patch does not make sense. I think it was just coincidental that
> >with the patch you did not get the hang.
> >
> >Signals are delivered to a thread, which should take the appropriate
> >actions. For the kernel process like rpc pool, the signals are never
> >delivered, they are queued in the randomly selected thread' signal queue
> >and sit there. The interruptible sleeps are aborted in the context
> >of that thread, but nothing else happens. So if you need to make svc
> >pools properly killable, all threads must check at least for EINTR and
> >instruct other threads to exit as well.
> I'm not sure I understand what the "randomly selected thread signal
> queue" means, but it seems strange that this usually works. (The code
> is at least 10years old. Originally committed by dfr@. I've added him
> to the cc list in case he understands this? Is it that, usually, the
> threads will all return EINTR before the master one gets to where the
> msleep() happens if the count is > 0?
Signals are put onto a signal queue between a time where the signal is
generated until the thread actually consumes it. I.e. the signal queue
is a container for the signals which are not yet acted upon. There is
one signal queue per process, and one signal queue for each thread
belonging to the process. When you signal the process, the signal is
put into some thread' signal queue, where the only criteria for the
selection of the thread is that the signal is not blocked. Since
SIGKILL is never blocked, it is put anywhere.
Until signal is delivered by cursig()/postsig() loop, typically at the
AST handler, the only consequence of its presence are the EINTR/ERESTART
errors returned from the PCATCH-enabled sleeps.
>
> >Your description at the start of the message of the behaviour after
> >SIGKILL, where other threads continued to serve RPCs, exactly matches
> >above explanation. You need to add some global 'stop' flag, if it is not
> >yet present, and recheck it after each RPC handled. Any thread which
> >notes EINTR or does a direct check for the pending signal, should set
> >the flag and wake up every other thread in the pool.
> Ok, I'll code up a patch with a global "stop" flag and test it for a while.
> If it seems ok, I'll put it up in phabricator and ask you to review it.
>
> Thanks, rick
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20180625205614.GI2430>