Re: [PATCH dlm/next 8/8] md-cluster: use DLM_LSFL_SOFTIRQ for dlm_new_lockspace()

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

 



Hi Heming,

On Wed, Jun 5, 2024 at 10:48 PM Heming Zhao <heming.zhao@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 6/6/24 02:54, Alexander Aring wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 3, 2024 at 5:56 PM Alexander Aring <aahringo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> Recently the DLM subsystem introduced the flag DLM_LSFL_SOFTIRQ for
> >> dlm_new_lockspace() to signal the capability to handle DLM ast/bast
> >> callbacks in softirq context to avoid an additional context switch due
> >> the DLM callback workqueue.
> >>
> >> The md-cluster implementation only does synchronized calls above the
> >> async DLM API. That synchronized API should may be also offered by DLM,
> >> however it is very simple as md-cluster callbacks only does a complete()
> >> call for their wait_for_completion() wait that is occurred after the
> >> async DLM API call. This patch activates the recently introduced
> >> DLM_LSFL_SOFTIRQ flag that allows that the DLM callbacks are executed in
> >> a softirq context that md-cluster can handle. It is reducing a
> >> unnecessary context workqueue switch and should speed up DLM in some
> >> circumstance.
> >>
> >
> > Can somebody with a md-cluster environment test it as well? All I was
> > doing was (with a working dlm_controld cluster env):
> >
> > mdadm --create /dev/md0 --bitmap=clustered --metadata=1.2
> > --raid-devices=2 --level=mirror /dev/sda /dev/sdb
> >
> > sda and sdb are shared block devices on each node.
> >
> > Create a /etc/mdadm.conf with the content mostly out of:
> >
> > mdadm --detail --scan
> >
> > on each node.
> >
> > Then call mdadm --assemble on all nodes where not "mdadm --create ..." happened.
> > I hope that is the right thing to do and I had with "dlm_tool ls" a
> > UUID as a lockspace name with some md-cluster locks being around.
>
> The above setup method is correct.
> SUSE doc [1] provides more details on assembling the clustered array.
>

yea, I saw that and mostly cut it down into the necessary steps in my
development setup.

Thanks for confirming I did something right here.

> [1]: https://documentation.suse.com/fr-fr/sle-ha/15-SP5/html/SLE-HA-all/cha-ha-cluster-md.html#sec-ha-cluster-md-create
>
> >
> > To bring this new flag upstream, would it be okay to get this through
> > dlm-tree? I am requesting here for an "Acked-by" tag from the md
> > maintainers.
> >
>
> I compiled & tested the dlm-tree [2] with SUSE CI env, and didn't see these
> patches introduce new issue.
>

Thanks for doing that. So that means you tried the dlm-tree with this
patch series applied?

Song or Yu, can I get an "Acked-by" from you and an answer if it is
okay that this md-cluster.c patch goes upstream via dlm-tree?

Thanks.

- Alex






[Index of Archives]     [Linux RAID Wiki]     [ATA RAID]     [Linux SCSI Target Infrastructure]     [Linux Block]     [Linux IDE]     [Linux SCSI]     [Linux Hams]     [Device Mapper]     [Device Mapper Cryptographics]     [Kernel]     [Linux Admin]     [Linux Net]     [GFS]     [RPM]     [git]     [Yosemite Forum]


  Powered by Linux