Yeah, I don't think it does. If by some chance we only got an incomplete info from such an interval, it doesn't matter whether choose_acting skips it or not when determining the most recent active interval since it couldn't have changed last_epoch_started or history.last_epoch_started. I think I can just kill that section. -Sam On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 3:41 PM, Samuel Just <sjust@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Currently trying to figure out whether > c7d92d1d3fe469f5e8e7c35185a670570c665029 matters (any interval where > acting contains an incomplete peer is could not have gone active, > right?) > -Sam > > On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 3:40 PM, Samuel Just <sjust@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Yeah, that's pretty much where I'm going. >> -Sam >> >> On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 3:24 PM, Sage Weil <sweil@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On Fri, 9 Dec 2016, Samuel Just wrote: >>>> Currently, never. However, I'm thinking that we might want to retain >>>> the freedom to not send the structure if it's really big. And >>>> actually, we won't ever need to extend a received past_intervals >>>> structure to the current epoch since if the interval changed, we'd >>>> throw out the whole message. >>> >>> I'd say throw out the incremental build code, then, and assert >>> past_intervals is present at notify time; we can re-add something to >>> recalculate the whole past_intervals if it becomes necessary in the >>> future. >>> >>> sage >>> >>> >>>> -Sam >>>> >>>> On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 2:16 PM, Sage Weil <sweil@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> > On Fri, 9 Dec 2016, Samuel Just wrote: >>>> >> In particular, we don't need PG::generate_past_intervals duplicating >>>> >> the logic in build_past_intervals_parallel since constructed PG >>>> >> objects only ever need to maintain a consistent past_intervals >>>> >> structure, never build it from scratch. >>>> > >>>> > Sounds good to me. >>>> > >>>> > My main question is: >>>> > >>>> >> On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 11:59 AM, Samuel Just <sjust@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >> > There's code for dealing with some odd past_intervals configurations >>>> >> > including doesn't go back far enough and doesn't go forward far >>>> >> > enough. I *think* we can simplify this as follows: >>>> >> > 1) Once the PG object is constructed and in memory, past_intervals >>>> >> > extends from history.last_epoch_started to the PG's current map >>>> >> > 2) On disk, either 1) is true or the set is empty (after an import) >>>> >> > >>>> >> > On boot, the OSD generates past_intervals in parallel for any PGs >>>> >> > without them (and perhaps verifies 1) for the rest). On receipt of a >>>> >> > Notify creating a PG, the OSD generates the past_intervals structure >>>> >> > before instantiating the PG using the same process as on boot -- >>>> >> > starting with the included past_intervals if present (may not extend >>>> >> > to the current map, and so may need to be extended). >>>> > >>>> > When does this actually happen? If PGs are always in state 1, can we >>>> > instead ensure that PG notify will always include past_intervals and that >>>> > a received notify will never require us to go off do the (slow) work of >>>> > loading up old maps to generate old intervals? >>>> > >>>> > Then, we can focus our efforts on make the past_intervals representation >>>> > compact (e.g., by discarding redundant intervals)... >>>> > >>>> > sage >>>> -- >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> -- 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
