Re: [PATCH v3 5/7] nfsdcltrack: update schema to v2

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

 



On Thu, 11 Sep 2014 16:28:36 -0400
Jeff Layton <jeff.layton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Thu, 11 Sep 2014 15:55:47 -0400
> "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 12:30:19PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > > From: Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > 
> > > In order to allow knfsd's lock manager to lift its grace period early,
> > > we need to figure out whether all clients have finished reclaiming
> > > their state not. Unfortunately, the current code doesn't allow us to
> > > ascertain this. All we track for each client is a timestamp that tells
> > > us when the last "check" or "create" operation came in.
> > > 
> > > We need to track the two timestamps separately. Add a new
> > > "reclaim_complete" column to the database that tells us when the last
> > > "create" operation came in. For now, we just insert "0" in that column
> > > but a later patch will make it so that we insert a real timestamp for
> > > v4.1+ client records.
> > 
> > If I understand correctly, then nfsdcltrack has a bug here: we shouldn't
> > be counting a 4.1 client as allowed to reclaim on the next boot until we
> > get the RECLAIM_COMPLETE, but nfsdcltrack is allowing a 4.1 client to
> > reclaim if all we got the previous boot was a reclaim open (a "check"
> > operation).
> > 
> > --b.
> > 
> 
> Yeah, I guess so, with a bit of a clarification I think...
> 
> We don't want to allow a v4.1 client to reclaim if it didn't send a
> RECLAIM_COMPLETE prior to the last reboot *and* the grace period ended
> prior to the last reboot.
> 
> IOW, in the case where the reboot occurs before the grace period ends,
> we don't want to clean out the and deny reclaims. FWIW, the legacy
> client tracker got this very wrong -- if you did a couple of rapid
> reboots in succession you couldn't reclaim once everything was back up.
> 
> I'll have to ponder how best to fix that. Given that the logic required
> is quite different between v4.0 and v4.1 clients, we may have to add yet
> another column to the DB to track what sort of client this is.
> 

This new requirement complicates things quite a bit. I'll have to
respin both patchsets.

I think we can fix this by ensuring that we clean out any v4.1+ clients
that have not done a "create" since the start of the grace period
during a "grace_done" upcall. For v4.0 clients, we can't do that of
course since a v4.0 client may reclaim opens but never do a new one
(and so may never send a "create" at all).

That means that we'll need also to send something in the "check" upcall
that indicates the client's minorversion. The good news is that we
won't need a new column in the DB since the only timestamp that matters
for v4.1+ clients is the "create" time. We can just avoid setting the
time field for v4.1+ clients on the "check" upcall.

Now that we need to send info about the minorversion in a "check", I
may go back to sending an actual minorversion in the upcall's
environment vars. It doesn't make sense to me to send a boolean about
RECLAIM_COMPLETE when the client hasn't actually sent one.

I'll get started on reworking this but I have no idea on an ETA just
yet. Hopefully I can have something that works by next week sometime.
 
-- 
Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Linux USB Development]     [Linux Media Development]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Info]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux