Thank you. More questions if I may. Librbd interface has rbd_ read/write aio_read/aio_write functions which take offset, len. Reads/aio_reads are in internal.cc transformed from off/len into image_extents pairs. However the common function aio_read is not called anywhere apart from API functions. It looks like the image_extents is always pair of simple offset/len and there is only one pair in vector. Is that correct? Write/aio_write keeps pair off/len till last call in the calling chain. Is there a valid scenario in which in aio_read there will be more than single image_extent? If so which one (except unit tests of course)? Thanks, maciej -----Original Message----- From: Jason Dillaman [mailto:dillaman@xxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2015 5:41 PM To: Patelczyk, Maciej Cc: ceph-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: librbd cacher lock protection? You are correct that a rx BH can be overwritten by a write request -- this will then mark the BH as dirty. If it's a partial overwrite, the BH will be split and only the affected section's state will be changed to dirty. When the outstanding read request completes, it will invoke 'ObjectCacher::bh_read_finish', which verifies that the BH is still in the rx state (and that the transaction ids match) before overwriting the data. The pending client read request will then complete and will be provided the latest contents of the BH(s). -- Jason Dillaman Red Hat dillaman@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Maciej Patelczyk" <maciej.patelczyk@xxxxxxxxx> > To: ceph-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2015 11:21:32 AM > Subject: librbd cacher lock protection? > > Hi All, > > I'm investigating librbd code related to caching (ObjectCacher). > What I cannot find is the data integrity protection while there is a > 'cache miss' (full or partial). It looks like _readx exits with > 'defer' and cache_lock is released (and locked again in LibWriteback). > The BufferHead's are marked as 'rx' but not protected against write. > Writex is not skipping nor checking for any BH. It's just populating data in cache. > That confuses me. So where is the protection? How does the cache > integrity protection actually work? > > Thanks, > maciej > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" > in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo > info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > ��.n��������+%������w��{.n����z��u���ܨ}���Ơz�j:+v�����w����ޙ��&�)ߡ�a����z�ޗ���ݢj��w�f
