Hi Sage,
It make sense . what you said in email is pretty much what you said in last meeting. Don’t worry. You are pretty consistent. ☺
Regards,
James
On 6/1/17, 2:42 PM, "Sage Weil" <sweil@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi James,
On Fri, 2 Jun 2017, LIU, Fei wrote:
> Hi Sage,
> Here is the slides that I mentioned in morning conference call regarding to async transaction implementation in the backend blustore
>
> https://www.slideshare.net/jupiturliu/async-queuetransaction
>
> We will modify the PR accordingly with your advice last time.
This is the PR, right?
https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/15141
I don't remember exactly what I said before :), but I think the more
promising path forward is not to introduce a context switch but instead to
find a way to drop PG::lock once the operation is serialized on the
sequencer, or to have a second PG lock just for submitting the
transaction. E.g.,
pg->submit_lock.Lock();
pg->unlock();
store->submit_transaction(...);
pg->submit_lock.Unlock();
This will require a careful look at what is happening inside PG after
PG::lock is dropped, though. It probably makes sense to look at this in
conjuction with something like
https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/11188
which never got finished (and has now gone very stale)...
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
