Hooks are added into the existing lockd global grace period checking to
enable per-ip base grace period.
-- Wendy
Thanks for the patches; a few more comments below:
On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 12:19:07AM -0500, Wendy Cheng wrote:
> Hooks are added into the existing lockd global grace period checking to
> enable per-ip base grace period.
>
> -- Wendy
>
>
> Hooks are added into the existing lockd global grace period checking
> to enable per-ip base grace period.
>
> Signed-off-by: S. Wendy Cheng <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Lon Hohberger <[email protected]>
>
> fs/lockd/svc.c | 3 ++-
> fs/lockd/svc4proc.c | 13 ++++++-------
> fs/lockd/svcproc.c | 12 ++++++------
> include/linux/lockd/lockd.h | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
> 4 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>
> --- linux-3/fs/lockd/svc4proc.c 2008-01-22 12:01:33.000000000 -0500
> +++ linux-4/fs/lockd/svc4proc.c 2008-01-24 17:44:12.000000000 -0500
> @@ -18,7 +18,6 @@
> #include <linux/lockd/share.h>
> #include <linux/lockd/sm_inter.h>
>
> -
> #define NLMDBG_FACILITY NLMDBG_CLIENT
>
> /*
> @@ -89,7 +88,7 @@ nlm4svc_proc_test(struct svc_rqst *rqstp
> resp->cookie = argp->cookie;
>
> /* Don't accept test requests during grace period */
> - if (nlmsvc_grace_period) {
> + if (nlmsvc_check_grace_period(rqstp, argp)) {
> resp->status = nlm_lck_denied_grace_period;
> return rpc_success;
> }
> @@ -121,7 +120,7 @@ nlm4svc_proc_lock(struct svc_rqst *rqstp
> resp->cookie = argp->cookie;
>
> /* Don't accept new lock requests during grace period */
> - if (nlmsvc_grace_period && !argp->reclaim) {
> + if (nlmsvc_check_grace_period(rqstp, argp) && !argp->reclaim) {
> resp->status = nlm_lck_denied_grace_period;
> return rpc_success;
> }
> @@ -166,7 +165,7 @@ nlm4svc_proc_cancel(struct svc_rqst *rqs
> resp->cookie = argp->cookie;
>
> /* Don't accept requests during grace period */
> - if (nlmsvc_grace_period) {
> + if (nlmsvc_check_grace_period(rqstp, argp)) {
> resp->status = nlm_lck_denied_grace_period;
> return rpc_success;
> }
> @@ -199,7 +198,7 @@ nlm4svc_proc_unlock(struct svc_rqst *rqs
> resp->cookie = argp->cookie;
>
> /* Don't accept new lock requests during grace period */
> - if (nlmsvc_grace_period) {
> + if (nlmsvc_check_grace_period(rqstp, argp)) {
> resp->status = nlm_lck_denied_grace_period;
> return rpc_success;
> }
> @@ -336,7 +335,7 @@ nlm4svc_proc_share(struct svc_rqst *rqst
> resp->cookie = argp->cookie;
>
> /* Don't accept new lock requests during grace period */
> - if (nlmsvc_grace_period && !argp->reclaim) {
> + if (nlmsvc_check_grace_period(rqstp, argp) && !argp->reclaim) {
> resp->status = nlm_lck_denied_grace_period;
> return rpc_success;
> }
> @@ -369,7 +368,7 @@ nlm4svc_proc_unshare(struct svc_rqst *rq
> resp->cookie = argp->cookie;
>
> /* Don't accept requests during grace period */
> - if (nlmsvc_grace_period) {
> + if (nlmsvc_check_grace_period(rqstp, argp)) {
> resp->status = nlm_lck_denied_grace_period;
> return rpc_success;
> }
> --- linux-3/fs/lockd/svcproc.c 2008-01-22 12:01:33.000000000 -0500
> +++ linux-4/fs/lockd/svcproc.c 2008-01-24 17:45:04.000000000 -0500
> @@ -118,7 +118,7 @@ nlmsvc_proc_test(struct svc_rqst *rqstp,
> resp->cookie = argp->cookie;
>
> /* Don't accept test requests during grace period */
> - if (nlmsvc_grace_period) {
> + if (nlmsvc_check_grace_period(rqstp, argp)) {
> resp->status = nlm_lck_denied_grace_period;
> return rpc_success;
> }
> @@ -151,7 +151,7 @@ nlmsvc_proc_lock(struct svc_rqst *rqstp,
> resp->cookie = argp->cookie;
>
> /* Don't accept new lock requests during grace period */
> - if (nlmsvc_grace_period && !argp->reclaim) {
> + if (nlmsvc_check_grace_period(rqstp, argp) && !argp->reclaim) {
> resp->status = nlm_lck_denied_grace_period;
> return rpc_success;
> }
> @@ -196,7 +196,7 @@ nlmsvc_proc_cancel(struct svc_rqst *rqst
> resp->cookie = argp->cookie;
>
> /* Don't accept requests during grace period */
> - if (nlmsvc_grace_period) {
> + if (nlmsvc_check_grace_period(rqstp, argp)) {
> resp->status = nlm_lck_denied_grace_period;
> return rpc_success;
> }
> @@ -229,7 +229,7 @@ nlmsvc_proc_unlock(struct svc_rqst *rqst
> resp->cookie = argp->cookie;
>
> /* Don't accept new lock requests during grace period */
> - if (nlmsvc_grace_period) {
> + if (nlmsvc_check_grace_period(rqstp, argp)) {
> resp->status = nlm_lck_denied_grace_period;
> return rpc_success;
> }
> @@ -368,7 +368,7 @@ nlmsvc_proc_share(struct svc_rqst *rqstp
> resp->cookie = argp->cookie;
>
> /* Don't accept new lock requests during grace period */
> - if (nlmsvc_grace_period && !argp->reclaim) {
> + if (nlmsvc_check_grace_period(rqstp, argp) && !argp->reclaim) {
> resp->status = nlm_lck_denied_grace_period;
> return rpc_success;
> }
> @@ -401,7 +401,7 @@ nlmsvc_proc_unshare(struct svc_rqst *rqs
> resp->cookie = argp->cookie;
>
> /* Don't accept requests during grace period */
> - if (nlmsvc_grace_period) {
> + if (nlmsvc_check_grace_period(rqstp, argp)) {
> resp->status = nlm_lck_denied_grace_period;
> return rpc_success;
> }
> --- linux-3/fs/lockd/svc.c 2008-01-24 17:30:55.000000000 -0500
> +++ linux-4/fs/lockd/svc.c 2008-01-24 17:41:40.000000000 -0500
> @@ -97,7 +97,7 @@ unsigned long get_nfs_grace_period(void)
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(get_nfs_grace_period);
>
> -static unsigned long set_grace_period(void)
> +unsigned long set_grace_period(void)
If this is needed, then it belongs with the previous patch, doesn't it?
> {
> nlmsvc_grace_period = 1;
> return get_nfs_grace_period() + jiffies;
> @@ -208,6 +208,7 @@ lockd(struct svc_rqst *rqstp)
> nlm_shutdown_hosts();
> nlmsvc_pid = 0;
> nlmsvc_serv = NULL;
> + nlmsvc_failover_reset();
Ditto. But I thought the previous patch already added an
nlmsvc_failover_reset() call just a few lines below.
> } else
> printk(KERN_DEBUG
> "lockd: new process, skipping host shutdown\n");
> --- linux-3/include/linux/lockd/lockd.h 2008-01-24 17:09:26.000000000 -0500
> +++ linux-4/include/linux/lockd/lockd.h 2008-01-24 17:41:40.000000000 -0500
> @@ -222,6 +222,7 @@ int nlmsvc_failover_path(struc
> int nlmsvc_failover_ip(__be32 server_addr);
> int nlmsvc_failover_setgrace(void *server_ip, int ip_size);
> void nlmsvc_failover_reset(void);
> +int nlmsvc_failover_check(struct svc_rqst *rqstp);
>
> #define NLM_FO_MAX_GP_CNT 1024
>
> @@ -236,6 +237,25 @@ struct nlm_failover_struct {
> #define g_ip g_key.ipv6
> };
>
> +extern struct list_head nlm_failover_list;
> +
> +/*Check for grace period: return TRUE or FALSE */
> +static inline int
> +nlmsvc_check_grace_period(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, struct nlm_args *argp)
> +{
> + /* check for system wide grace period */
> + if (nlmsvc_grace_period)
> + return 1;
> +
> + /* check for per exported fsid grace period */
The "per exported fsid" comment seems to be out of date.
> + if (unlikely(!list_empty(&nlm_failover_list)))
> + return(nlmsvc_failover_check(rqstp));
Drop the parentheses after "return".
Is the "unlikely" a good idea? I don't know what the rule of thumb is
for those.
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +/* end of cluster failover addition */
> +
> static __inline__ struct inode *
> nlmsvc_file_inode(struct nlm_file *file)
> {