[systemd-devel] [dm-devel] multipath breaks with recent udev/systemd
hare at suse.de
Thu Dec 18 23:21:57 PST 2014
On 12/18/2014 11:04 PM, Benjamin Marzinski wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 01:04:54PM +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
>> On 12/16/2014 11:18 PM, Benjamin Marzinski wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 04:10:44PM -0600, Benjamin Marzinski wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 10:31:44AM +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
>> [ .. ]
>>>>> So during bootup it's anyone's guess who's first, multipath or udev.
>>>>> And depending on the timing either multipath will fail to setup
>>>>> the device-mapper device or udev will simply ignore the device.
>>>>> Neither of those is a good, but the first is an absolute killer for
>>>>> modern systems which _rely_ on udev to configure devices.
>>>>> So how it this supposed to work?
>>>>> Why does udev ignore the entire event if it can't get the lock?
>>>>> Shouldn't it rather be retried?
>>>>> What is the supposed recovery here?
>>>> Hannes, are you against the idea that Alexander mentioned in his first
>>>> email, of just locking a file in /var/lock? Multipathd doesn't create
>>>> devices in parallel. Multipath doesn't create files in parallel. We are
>>>> explicitly trying to avoid multipath and multipathd creating files at
>>>> the same time. So, we should only need a single file to lock, and
>>>> /run/lock should always be there.
>>> O.k. So if we want to keep our current nonblocking behavior, we'll need
>>> more lockfiles, either one per path or one per wwid. This still seems
>>> like a reasonable idea, if there is a good reason for systemd doing what
>>> it's doing.
>> The problem is as follows:
>> When multipathd is running we simply _cannot_ guarantee that no udev
>> events are currently running. This currently hits us especially bad
>> during system startup when device probing is still running during
>> multipathd startup.
>> Multipathd will then enumerate all block devices to setup the
>> initial topology.
>> But in doing so it might trip over device which are still processed
>> by udev (or, worse still, _not yet_ processed by udev).
>> (Yes, I know, libudev_enumerate should protect against this.
>> But it doesn't. )
> But we start waiting for events before the initial multipath device
> configuration, and don't process them until after that configuration
> is compelete, so if there is ever a case where the initial configuration
> is accessing the device to early, aren't we guaranteed to get an event
> afterwards, assuming that udev doesn't drop it?
That was the initial idea. Only it doesn't do it currently :-)
>> So it's anyone guess what'll happen now; either multipath trips over
>> the lock from udev when calling 'lock_multipath' (and consequently
>> failing to setup the multipath device), or udev
>> tripping over the lock from multipath and ignoring the event,
>> leaving us with a non-functioning device.
> But my point above is that if we use a lockfile instead of locking the
> path device itself, there won't be any lock contention, and udev won't
> drop the events.
The underlying issue here is:
Why does multipath lock the devices _at all_?
If it were to protect against device disappearing while doing the
ioctl that's already proven not to work.
And for protecting against mounts a simple open(O_EXCL) would be
sufficient. So whom are we fooling here?
Dr. Hannes Reinecke zSeries & Storage
hare at suse.de +49 911 74053 688
SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
GF: F. Imendörffer, J. Smithard, J. Guild, D. Upmanyu, G. Norton
HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
More information about the systemd-devel