On 02/13/2017 05:15 PM, Ilya Dryomov wrote:
On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 10:54 AM, Artur Molchanov
<artur.molchanov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Ilya,
On 02/13/2017 12:11 PM, Ilya Dryomov wrote:
Hi Artur,
How about the attached patch? handle_timeout() is going to iterate
over all but the homeless OSD anyway; all it costs us is a couple of
tests, so I don't think a separate work is needed.
abort_request() is a simple wrapper around complete_request(), making
it safe to call at any time -- replace it with complete_request() for
now if you want to try this out.
Using one job for sending keepalive requests and completing stuck requests
brings us to the need to check that osd_keepalive_timeout is not larger then
osd_request_timeout. So we should not forget to say about it in the
documentation.
I'll make a note to mention that it is osd_keepalive_timeout-precise.
Is it worth creating a correlation between osd_keepalive_timeout and
osd_request_timeout?
No, probably not. osd_keepalive_timeout and osd_idle_ttl are similarly
related and we don't have any.
Your variant of patch works.
As I said, using job handle_timeout to send keepalive requests and aborting
stuck requests is not the perfect choice, but OK, it works.
What should I do to make this patch merged to upstream?
--
Artur
--
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
