Am Mittwoch, 12. September 2007 15:37 schrieb J. Bruce Fields:
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 02:07:10PM +0200, Wolfgang Walter wrote:
> > as already described old temporary sockets (client is gone) of lockd
> > aren't closed after some time. So, with enough clients and some time
> > gone, there are 80 open dangling sockets and you start getting messages
> > of the form:
> >
> > lockd: too many open TCP sockets, consider increasing the number of nfsd
> > threads.
>
> Thanks for working on this problem!
>
> > If I understand the code then the intention was that the server closes
> > temporary sockets after about 6 to 12 minutes:
> >
> > a timer is started which calls svc_age_temp_sockets every 6 minutes.
> >
> > svc_age_temp_sockets:
> > if a socket is marked OLD it gets closed.
> > sockets which are not marked as OLD are marked OLD
> >
> > every time the sockets receives something OLD is cleared.
> >
> > But svc_age_temp_sockets never closes any socket though because it only
> > closes sockets with svsk->sk_inuse == 0. This seems to be a bug.
> >
> > Here is a patch against 2.6.22.6 which changes the test to
> > svsk->sk_inuse <= 0 which was probably meant. The patched kernel runs
> > fine here. Unused sockets get closed (after 6 to 12 minutes)
>
> So the fact that this changes the behavior means that sk_inuse is taking
> on negative values. This can't be right--how can something like
> svc_sock_put() (which does an atomic_dec_and_test) work in that case?
You probably misread the code.
if (atomic_read(&svsk->sk_inuse) || test_bit(SK_BUSY, &svsk->sk_flags))
continue;
This means: any socket where svsk->sk_inuse != 0 or SK_BUSY is set is ignored
by svc_age_temp_sockets: no attempt is made to close the svc.
This seems to be wrong: if svsk->sk_inuse is zero only if svc_delete_socket
has been called for it and will be deleted anyway (probably it is already
closed then).
But the intention of svc_age_temp_sockets is to close open temporary
sockets where no traffic has been received for more than 6 minutes. These
sockets have svsk->sk_inuse >= 1.
My patch does exactly this:
instead of
"skip sockets which are not already deleted or which are busy"
to
"skip sockets which are already deleted or which are busy"
>
> I wish I had time today to figure out what's going on in this case. But
> from a quick through svsock.c for sk_inuse, it looks odd; I'm suspicious
> of anything without the stereotyped behavior--initializing to one,
> atomic_inc()ing whenever someone takes a reference, and
> atomic_dec_and_test()ing whenever someone drops it....
>
Then svc_tcp_accept would be wrong, too (it closes sockets the same way just
without testing for sk_inuse and SK_BUSY).
I think this works because as long as a socket is in sv_tempsocks or
sv_permsocks svsk->sk_inuse can never reach zero. As svc_age_temp_sockets locks
the list nobody can bring svsk->sk_inuse to zero as long as
svc_age_temp_sockets holds the lock. As svc_age_temp_sockets calls
atomic_inc(&svsk->sk_inuse) when holding the lock there is no
problem. (the same is true for svc_tcp_accept).
This is the reason why I doubt that this check for svsk->sk_inuse in
svc_age_temp_sockets is usefull at all. It should be always false.
Regards,
--
Wolfgang Walter
Studentenwerk München
Anstalt des öffentlichen Rechts
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]