From: Wendy Cheng <wcheng@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [NFS] [RFC] NLM lock failover admin interface
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 02:54:51 -0400
Message-ID: <1150268091.28264.75.camel@localhost.localdomain>
References: <1150089943.26019.18.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<17550.11870.186706.36949@cse.unsw.edu.au>
Reply-To: linux clustering <linux-cluster@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Cc: linux-cluster@redhat.com, nfs@lists.sourceforge.net
Return-path: <linux-cluster-bounces@redhat.com>
To: Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de>
In-Reply-To: <17550.11870.186706.36949@cse.unsw.edu.au>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster>,
	<mailto:linux-cluster-request@redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www.redhat.com/archives/linux-cluster>
List-Post: <mailto:linux-cluster@redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:linux-cluster-request@redhat.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster>,
	<mailto:linux-cluster-request@redhat.com?subject=subscribe>
Sender: linux-cluster-bounces@redhat.com
Errors-To: linux-cluster-bounces@redhat.com
List-ID: <nfs.lists.sourceforge.net>

Hi,

KABI (kernel application binary interface) commitment is a big thing
from our end - so I would like to focus more on the interface agreement
before jumping into coding and implementation details. 

>   One is the multiple-lockd-threads idea.

Assume we still have this on the table.... Could I expect the admin
interface goes thru rpc.lockd command (man page and nfs-util code
changes) ? The modified command will take similar options as rpc.statd;
more specifically, the -n, -o, and -p (see "man rpc.statd"). To pass the
individual IP (socket address) to kernel, we'll need nfsctl with struct
nfsctl_svc modified.

For the kernel piece, since we're there anyway, could we have the
individual lockd IP interface passed to SM (statd) (in SM_MON call) ?
This would allow statd to structure its SM files based on each lockd IP
address, an important part of lock recovery.

>   One is to register a callback when an interface is shut down.

Haven't checked out (linux) socket interface yet. I'm very fuzzy how
this can be done. Anyone has good ideas ? 

>   Another (possibly the best) is to arrange a new signal for lockd
>   which say "Drop any locks which were sent to IP addresses that are
>   no longer valid local addresses".

Very appealing - but the devil's always in the details. How to decide
which IP address is no longer valid ? Or how does lockd know about these
IP addresses ? And how to associate one particular IP address with the
"struct nlm_file" entries within nlm_files list ? Need few more days to
sort this out (or any one already has ideas in mind ?).

-- Wendy