On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 8:55 AM Yedidyah Bar David <didi(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 7:05 PM Nir Soffer <nsoffer(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 6:47 PM Asaf Rachmani <arachman(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I didn't check it yet, but maybe this customer bug is related to this
discussion:
> >
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1666553
>
> This bug is about the broker opening too many connections
> to vdsm:
>
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1666553#c1
>
> If the broker keeps 1000's of connections open it it likey that
> vdsm will run out of fds.
>
> > From vdsm.log:
> > 2019-01-15 13:41:11,162+0000 INFO (periodic/2) [vdsm.api] FINISH
multipath_health return={} from=internal, task_id=97c359aa-002e-46d8-9fc5-2477db0909b4
(api:52)
> > 2019-01-15 13:41:12,210+0000 WARN (vdsm.Scheduler) [Executor] Worker blocked:
<Worker name=jsonrpc/0 running <Task <JsonRpcTask {'params': {},
'jsonrpc': '2.0', 'method': u'Host.getCapabilities',
'id': u'74b9dc62-22b2-4698-9d84-6a71c4f29763'} at 0x7f71dc31b0d0>
timeout=60, duration=60 at 0x7f71dc31b110> task#=33 at 0x7f722003c890>, traceback:
> > File: "/usr/lib64/python2.7/threading.py", line 785, in __bootstrap
> > self.__bootstrap_inner()
> > File: "/usr/lib64/python2.7/threading.py", line 812, in
__bootstrap_inner
> > self.run()
> > File: "/usr/lib64/python2.7/threading.py", line 765, in run
> > self.__target(*self.__args, **self.__kwargs)
> > File: "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/vdsm/common/concurrent.py",
line 194, in run
> > ret = func(*args, **kwargs)
> > File: "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/vdsm/executor.py", line 301,
in _run
> > self._execute_task()
> > File: "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/vdsm/executor.py", line 315,
in _execute_task
> > task()
> > File: "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/vdsm/executor.py", line 391,
in __call__
> > self._callable()
> > File: "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/yajsonrpc/__init__.py", line
523, in __call__
> > self._handler(self._ctx, self._req)
> > File: "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/yajsonrpc/__init__.py", line
566, in _serveRequest
> > response = self._handle_request(req, ctx)
> > File: "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/yajsonrpc/__init__.py", line
606, in _handle_request
> > res = method(**params)
> > File: "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/vdsm/rpc/Bridge.py", line
197, in _dynamicMethod
> > result = fn(*methodArgs)
> > File: "<string>", line 2, in getCapabilities
> > File: "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/vdsm/common/api.py", line 48,
in method
> > ret = func(*args, **kwargs)
> > File: "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/vdsm/API.py", line 1337, in
getCapabilities
> > c = caps.get()
> > File: "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/vdsm/host/caps.py", line 168,
in get
> > net_caps = supervdsm.getProxy().network_caps()
> > File: "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/vdsm/common/supervdsm.py",
line 55, in __call__
> > return callMethod()
> > File: "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/vdsm/common/supervdsm.py",
line 53, in <lambda>
> > **kwargs)
> > File: "<string>", line 2, in network_caps
> > File: "/usr/lib64/python2.7/multiprocessing/b", line 759, in
_callmethod
> > kind, result = conn.recv() (executor:363)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 5:52 PM Nir Soffer <nsoffer(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 1:22 PM Yedidyah Bar David <didi(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 9:05 AM Yedidyah Bar David
<didi(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > Hi all,
> >> > >
> >> > > I ran a loop of [1] (from [2]). The loop succeeded for ~ 380
> >> > > iterations, then failed with 'Too many open files'. First
failure was:
> >> > >
> >> > > 2021-02-08 02:21:15,702+0100 ERROR (jsonrpc/4) [storage.HSM]
Could not
> >> > > connect to storageServer (hsm:2446)
> >> > > Traceback (most recent call last):
> >> > > File
"/usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/vdsm/storage/hsm.py", line
> >> > > 2443, in connectStorageServer
> >> > > conObj.connect()
> >> > > File
"/usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/vdsm/storage/storageServer.py",
> >> > > line 449, in connect
> >> > > return self._mountCon.connect()
> >> > > File
"/usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/vdsm/storage/storageServer.py",
> >> > > line 171, in connect
> >> > > self._mount.mount(self.options, self._vfsType,
cgroup=self.CGROUP)
> >> > > File
"/usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/vdsm/storage/mount.py", line
> >> > > 210, in mount
> >> > > cgroup=cgroup)
> >> > > File
"/usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/vdsm/common/supervdsm.py",
> >> > > line 56, in __call__
> >> > > return callMethod()
> >> > > File
"/usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/vdsm/common/supervdsm.py",
> >> > > line 54, in <lambda>
> >> > > **kwargs)
> >> > > File "<string>", line 2, in mount
> >> > > File
"/usr/lib64/python3.6/multiprocessing/managers.py", line 772,
> >> > > in _callmethod
> >> > > raise convert_to_error(kind, result)
> >> > > OSError: [Errno 24] Too many open files
> >>
> >> Maybe we have a fd leak in supervdsmd?
> >>
> >> We know that there a small memory leak in multiprocessing, but not
> >> about any fd leak.
> >>
> >> > > But obviously, once it did, it continued failing for this reason
on
> >> > > many later operations.
> >>
> >> Smells like fd leak.
> >>
> >> > > Is this considered a bug?
> >>
> >> Generally yes, but the question is if this happens during
> >> real world scenarios.
> >>
> >> > Do we actively try to prevent such cases?
> >>
> >> No, we don't have any code monitoring number of open fds
> >> in runtime, or tests checking this in system tests.
> >>
> >> We do have health monitor in vdsm:
> >>
https://github.com/oVirt/vdsm/blob/master/lib/vdsm/health.py
> >>
> >> It can be useful to log monitor also the number of fds (.e.g ls -lh
> >> /proc/pid/fd).
> >>
> >> We don't have any monitor in supervdsm, it can be useful to add
> >> one. supervdsm is relatively simple, but the problem is it runs
> >> possibly complex code from vdsm, so "safe" changes in vdsm can
> >> cause trouble when the code is run by supervdsm.
> >>
> >> > So should I open one and attach logs? Or it can be considered a
"corner
> >> > > case"?
> >>
> >> Yes, please open a bug, and include the info you have.
Done,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1926589 .
> >>
> >> Please include output of "ls -lh /proc/pid/fd" for both vdsm
> >> and supervdsm when you reproduce the issue, or during the
> >> long test if you cannot reproduce.
> >>
> >> > > Using vdsm-4.40.50.3-37.git7883b3b43.el8.x86_64 from
> >> > > ost-images-el8-he-installed-1-202102021144.x86_64 .
> >> > >
> >> > > I can also let access to the machine(s) if needed, for now.
> >> >
> >> > Sorry, now cleaned this env. Can try to reproduce if there is
interest.
> >>
> >> It will help you can reproduce.
Trying now.
It didn't fail yet (finished 45 iterations), but it already seems like supervdsm
is leaking. When I started, it had 30+ open files (32 on host-0, 35 on host-1),
now it has 160+ (169, 166). Not sure how to see what's leaking. Almost all of
them are pipes. I'll run strace on it for some time, hopefully this can help.
Best regards,
--
Didi