Re: New locking strategy

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

 



On 04/03/2012 04:53 PM, Anand Avati wrote:


On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 6:20 AM, Xavier Hernandez <xhernandez@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hello developers,

I'm currently trying to implement a new method for managing inode and entry modifications that will be faster (I hope) than the current method for the most common cases. To do so I need to know exactly how the locking mechanism works. I have been browsing the source code and doing some tests, and I would like to be sure that I have understood it correctly before continuing.

All information is based on latest qa releases from 3.3 branch.

My understanding is this:

- There are three locking fops: lk, inodelk and entrylk.
- Client application locks created using fcntl() are received by the translators as lk requests.
- All other functionalities of lk fop are not currently used by any translator (I mean F_RESLK_LCK, F_RESLK_LCKW, F_RESLK_UNLCK and F_GETLK_FD).
- inodelk and entrlylk are only used by AFR to lock inodes or directory entries before modification.
- Translators don't generate lk requests internally.
- Client application requests cannot directly generate an inodelk or entrylk requests.

Correct so far.
 
- inodelk and entrylk locks are always mandatory.

inodelk and entrylk are always advisory. Never mandatory (at least so far)
Sorry, I was thinking one thing and said another. Never mind, it's as I expected: no request will be blocked by any of these locks (except themselves)

 
- lk locks may be mandatory or advisory.

mandatory mode is not tested for a very long time.
Ok, I won't waste much time on mandatory locks.

 
- lk and inodelk are independent from each other, meaning that a lock using lk will not be visible to inodelk and will not block it. inodelk won't block lk requests neither.
- User requests can only be blocked by lk created locks

Correct, and only if mandatory locks are enabled (which isn't tested right now)
Ok.
 
(if a write request from user is allowed to pass without using inodelk, it won't be blocked by a previous inodelk).


inodelks are never mandatory, so the question does not apply
Ok.

Thank you very much

Xavi

[Index of Archives]     [Gluster Users]     [Ceph Users]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [eCos]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux