RE: seastar crimson --- pglock solution discussion

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gregory Farnum [mailto:gfarnum@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2018 3:15 PM
> To: Liu, Chunmei <chunmei.liu@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: The Esoteric Order of the Squid Cybernetic <ceph-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
> Kefu Chai <kchai@xxxxxxxxxx>; Cheng, Yingxin <yingxin.cheng@xxxxxxxxx>; Ma,
> Jianpeng <jianpeng.ma@xxxxxxxxx>; Radoslaw Zarzynski <rzarzyns@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: seastar crimson --- pglock solution discussion
> 
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 4:23 PM Liu, Chunmei <chunmei.liu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> >     In order to keep IO request sequence in one pg, osd use pglock to guarantee
> the sequence.  Here in Crimson, it is lockless, so we use future/promise to do the
> same work.
> >
> >     We can design Each PG has its own IO request queue in
> > seastar-crimson shard. And each PG has one member seastar::promise<>
> > pg_ready;
> >
> >    When need pglock.lock(),  we use the following logic to instead:
> >
> >                                     return pg_ready.get_future()
> //after satisfy the pg_ready promise later then the future will be fulfilled here.
> >                                        .then([this] {
> >                                             Pg_ready = seastar::promise<>{};                           // set
> promise pg_ready no future.
> >                                                      Dequeue io from pg's request queue and do osd
> following process.
> >                                         });
> >
> >   When need pglock.unlock(), we use the following logic to instead:
> >                                     then_wrapped([this] (auto fut) {
> >                                        fut.forward_to(std::move(pg_ready));     // satisfy the
> pg_ready promise
> >                                     }); So the next IO request in the
> > PG queue will not be dequeued until the pg_ready promise is satisfied after the
> prior request has already been processed in OSD.
> >
> > Do you think it is workable?
> 
> Have we considered *not* using a "global" pglock and instead tracking
> dependencies more carefully?
> 
> IIRC, in the current model we use the pg lock for two different kinds of things
> 1) to prevent mutating in-memory state incorrectly across racing threads,
> 2) to provide ordering of certain kinds of operations (eg, reads of in-progress
> writes)

Another 3) pglog need to be sequenced, first IO request pglog should write first, for replicators consistency. (use pglog head/tail pointer to do recovery)

> 
> In Seastar, we shouldn't need to worry about (1) at all.

Yes, that is correct. Since each pg only belong to one seastar thread.

> (2) is of course more tricky, but it seems like we ought to be able to do tracking
> more easily so as to condition dependencies explicitly on the dependency. For
> instance, we can condition a write operation being applied to the object store
> on its preceding pg log operation being done; we can condition reads
> proceeding on not having a write to the same object in progress, etc.
> 
How to do the condition in crimson?  Can you give an example here?

(3) Since Crimson code run in async mode, how to grantee pglog write in sequence? 

> Am I misunderstanding something? Or does this make sense?
> -Greg




[Index of Archives]     [CEPH Users]     [Ceph Large]     [Information on CEPH]     [Linux BTRFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux