Re: [RFC v4 0/9] NFS Force Unmounting

On Mon, Dec 04 2017, Joshua Watt wrote:

On Fri, 2017-11-17 at 11:45 -0600, Joshua Watt wrote:

quoted

Latest attempt at unifying the various constraints for force
umounting
NFS servers that have disappeared in a timely manner. Namely:
  * umount2(..., MNT_FORCE) should not be made stronger, unless we
know
    this is the final umount()
  * The "failed server" state should be reversible
  * The mechanism should be able to "unstick" a sync(2) that is stuck
on
    an unresponsive server

I believe the proposal satisfies all of these concerns. There are a
few
major components to this proposal:
 1) The umount_begin superblock operation now has a corresponding
    umount_end operation. This is invoked by umount() when MNT_FORCE
is
    specified (like umount_begin()), but the actual unmount failed
(i.e.
    the mount is busy).
 2) Instead of killing all the RPC queued at a single point in time,
the
    NFS mount now kills all queue RPCs and all RPCs that get queued
    between nfs_umount_begin() and nfs_umount_end(). I believe this
is
    not a significant change in behavior because there were always
races
    between queuing RPCs and killing them in nfs_umount_begin().
 3) nfs_umount_end() is *not* called when MNT_DETACH is specified.
This
    is the indication that the user is done with this mount and all
    RPCs will be killed until the mount finally gets removed.
 4) The new "transient" mount option prevents sharing nfs_clients
    between multiple superblocks. The only exception to this is when
the
    kernel does an automatic mount to cross a device boundary ("xdev"
    NFS mount). In this case, the existing code always shares the
    existing nfs_client from parent superblock. The "transient" mount
    option implies "nosharecache", as it doesn't make sense to share
    superblocks if clients aren't shared.
 5) If the "transient" mount option is specified (and hence the
    nfs_client is not shared), MNT_FORCE kills all RPCs for the
entire
    nfs_client (and all its nfs_servers). This effectively enables
the
    "burn down the forest" option when combined with MNT_DETACH.

The choice to use MNT_FORCE as the mechanism for triggering this
behavior stems from the desire to unstick sync(2) calls that might be
blocked on a non-responsive NFS server. While it was previously
discussed to remount with a new mount option to enable this behavior,
this cannot release the blocked sync(2) call because both
sync_fileystem() and do_remount() lock the struct superblock-

quoted

s_umount

reader-writer lock. As such, a remount will block until the sync(2)
finishes, which is undesirable. umount2() doesn't have this
restriction
and can unblock the sync(2) call.

For the most part, all existing behavior is unchanged if the
"transient"
option is not specified. umount -f continues to behave as is has, but
umount -fl (see note below) now does a more aggressive kill to get
everything out of there and allow unmounting in a more timely manner.
Note that there will probably be some communication with the server
still, as destruction of the NFS client ID and such will occur when
the
last reference is removed. If the server is truly gone, this can
result
in long blocks at that time.

If it is known at mount time that the server might be disappearing,
it
should be mounted with "transient". Doing this will allow mount -fl
to
do a more complete cleanup and prevent all communication with the
server, which should allow a timely cleanup in all cases.

Notes:

Until recently, libmount did not allow a detached and lazy mount at
the
same time. This was recently fixed (see
https://marc.info/?l=util-linux-ng&m=151000714401929&w=2). If you
want
to test this, you may need to write a simple test program that
directly
calls umount2() with MNT_FORCE | MNT_DETACH.

Thank you all again for your time and comments,
Joshua Watt

Joshua Watt (9):
  SUNRPC: Add flag to kill new tasks
  SUNRPC: Expose kill_new_tasks in debugfs
  SUNRPC: Simplify client shutdown
  namespace: Add umount_end superblock operation
  NFS: Kill RPCs for the duration of umount
  NFS: Add debugfs for nfs_server and nfs_client
  NFS: Add transient mount option
  NFS: Don't shared transient clients
  NFS: Kill all client RPCs if transient

 fs/namespace.c                 |  22 ++++++-
 fs/nfs/Makefile                |   2 +-
 fs/nfs/client.c                |  96 +++++++++++++++++++++++++--
 fs/nfs/debugfs.c               | 143
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 fs/nfs/inode.c                 |   5 ++
 fs/nfs/internal.h              |  11 ++++
 fs/nfs/nfs3client.c            |   2 +
 fs/nfs/nfs4client.c            |   5 ++
 fs/nfs/nfs4super.c             |   1 +
 fs/nfs/super.c                 |  81 ++++++++++++++++++++---
 include/linux/fs.h             |   1 +
 include/linux/nfs_fs_sb.h      |   6 ++
 include/linux/sunrpc/clnt.h    |   1 +
 include/uapi/linux/nfs_mount.h |   1 +
 net/sunrpc/clnt.c              |  13 ++--
 net/sunrpc/debugfs.c           |   5 ++
 net/sunrpc/sched.c             |   3 +
 17 files changed, 372 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 fs/nfs/debugfs.c

Anyone have any comments on this? Sorry fo the churn, it took a few
tries to get this to where it would work. I also realize I should have
put all my RFC patchsets in-reply-to each other instead of starting a
new thread for each one.

The new semantic for MNT_DETACH|MNT_FORCE is interesting.
As it was never possible before (from /bin/umount), it should be safe to
add a new meaning.
The meaning is effectively "detach the filesystem from the namespace and
detach the transport from the filesystem", which sounds like it is
useful.
It is worth highlighting this, and maybe even cc:ing
linux-api-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org ... done that.

The new umount_end to match umount_begin seems to make sense.  It can
replace a racy semantic with a more predictable one, and that is good.
As you say, we cannot do anything really useful here with remount as
sync can block it by holding ->s_umount.

I'm not sure about the new "transient" option.  It is probably a good
idea but I haven't yet wrapped my mind around exactly what it does so I
don't want to commit just yet.

Thanks,
NeilBrown