From: David Teigland Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/10] gfs2: nfs lock support for gfs2 Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 09:30:43 -0600 Message-ID: <20061207153043.GB14548@redhat.com> References: <8eb625184e6025f7f3d081dfe0a805abdd62a068.1165380892.git.bfields@citi.umich.edu> <70549752c06e54117024429649fd7aa813f21bec.1165380893.git.bfields@citi.umich.edu> <20061206154951.GB16378@redhat.com> <20061206195722.GH1714@fieldses.org> <20061206205822.GB25322@redhat.com> <20061206212347.GA25465@fieldses.org> <20061206214231.GC25322@redhat.com> <20061206220029.GC25465@fieldses.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, nfs@lists.sourceforge.net, Marc Eshel Return-path: Received: from sc8-sf-mx1-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.91] helo=mail.sourceforge.net) by sc8-sf-list2-new.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GsLIP-000135-HK for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 07 Dec 2006 07:36:25 -0800 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]) by mail.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1GsLIN-00078u-Lj for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 07 Dec 2006 07:36:27 -0800 To: "J. Bruce Fields" In-Reply-To: <20061206220029.GC25465@fieldses.org> List-Id: "Discussion of NFS under Linux development, interoperability, and testing." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: nfs-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: nfs-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 05:00:29PM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 03:42:31PM -0600, David Teigland wrote: > > Oh yeah, that's painful, I knew it sounded too easy. > > Yeah. Well, we could try to teach GFS2 to reliably cancel posix locks. > I think that may turn out to be necessary some day anyway. Some posix locks would be trivial to cancel and others would be hard. If gfs_controld has not yet read the op from the kernel's send_list, then we just remove the op and it never "goes out". After gfs_controld has taken it and sent it, then it's had its effect and, as you reminded me, is unreversible without introducing new complexity (like the provisional locks which sound unpleasant). In practice, I don't know how likely we are to find ops that haven't been sent yet--the easy ones to cancel. > Or we could look at why we're timing out and figure out whether there's > something else we should be doing instead in that case. In what > situations is the GFS2 lock call likely to take overly long? Again, in practice, I really don't know how long a sent lock could be delayed. When everything is running normally the only delay is between sending the message (through the openais comms api) and receiving it back again (which is when we grant it). So, for us it's completely depedent on how long the delivery of messages could be delayed by openais due to openais dealing with configuration changes in the cluster. Dave ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ NFS maillist - NFS@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs