From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Eric Barton <eeb@sun.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 23:07:42 +0000
Subject: [Lustre-devel] [RFC] parallel enqueue
In-Reply-To: <47AC75E3.7010901@sun.com>
References: <47AC75E3.7010901@sun.com>
Message-ID: <01b801c86d02$e7a520a0$0281a8c0@ebpc>
List-Id: <lustre-devel-lustre.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: lustre-devel@lists.lustre.org


This sounds great!

But are there any livelock issues? 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: lustre-devel-bounces at lists.lustre.org 
> [mailto:lustre-devel-bounces at lists.lustre.org] On Behalf Of 
> Alex Zhuravlev
> Sent: 08 February 2008 3:32 PM
> To: lustre-devel at lists.lustre.org
> Subject: [Lustre-devel] [RFC] parallel enqueue
> 
> Hi,
> 
> in some cases (truncate, append) we still use serialized enqueue
> when all locks have to be enqueued synchronously one by one.
> 
> what if we could mark all locks issued by single client with some
> unique tag (timestamp + nid?), then enqueue them all and then, in
> case of conflict, in blocking ast handler compare tag of conflicting
> lock with own tag, cancel our granted locks if our tag is greater
> than tag of conflicting lock and enqueue them again?
> 
> thanks, Alex
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Lustre-devel mailing list
> Lustre-devel at lists.lustre.org
> http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-devel
>