* [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH 0/5] nocontrold: Eliminating ocfs2_controld v3
@ 2013-10-03 5:48 Goldwyn Rodrigues
2013-10-03 11:25 ` Lars Marowsky-Bree
2013-10-03 20:30 ` Andrew Morton
0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Goldwyn Rodrigues @ 2013-10-03 5:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ocfs2-devel
Hi,
This is an effort of removing ocfs2_controld.pcmk and getting ocfs2 DLM
handling up to the times with respect to DLM (>=4.0.1) and corosync
(2.3.x). AFAIK, cman also is being phased out for a unified corosync
cluster stack.
fs/dlm performs all the functions with respect to fencing and node
management and provides the API's to do so for ocfs2. For all future
references, DLM stands for fs/dlm code.
The advantages are:
+ No need to run an additional userspace daemon (ocfs2_controld)
+ No contrrold devince handling and controld protocol
+ Shifting responsibilities of node management to DLM layer
For backward compatibility, we are keeping the controld handling code. Once
enough time has passed we can remove a significant portion of the code.
This feature requires modification in the userspace ocfs2-tools.
The changes can be found at:
https://github.com/goldwynr/ocfs2-tools branch: nocontrold
Currently, not many checks are present in the userspace code,
but that would change soon.
These changes were developed on linux-stable 3.11.y, though they
are applicable at the current upstream as well. If you want to give
the entire kernel a spin, the link is:
https://github.com/goldwynr/linux-stable branch: nocontrold
Changes since v2:
* Joel's comments: patch re-factoring
* No need to safeguard cluster_stack
Changes since v1:
* Backward compatibility with ocfs2_controld
* Moved cluster_stack change restriction to dlm code
--
Goldwyn
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH 0/5] nocontrold: Eliminating ocfs2_controld v3
2013-10-03 5:48 [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH 0/5] nocontrold: Eliminating ocfs2_controld v3 Goldwyn Rodrigues
@ 2013-10-03 11:25 ` Lars Marowsky-Bree
2013-10-04 15:01 ` Goldwyn Rodrigues
2013-10-03 20:30 ` Andrew Morton
1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Lars Marowsky-Bree @ 2013-10-03 11:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ocfs2-devel
On 2013-10-03T00:48:55, Goldwyn Rodrigues <rgoldwyn@suse.de> wrote:
Hi Goldwyn,
just a minor comment:
> For backward compatibility, we are keeping the controld handling code. Once
> enough time has passed we can remove a significant portion of the code.
Can we add this to Documentation/fs/ocfs2.txt, or maybe print a one-time
message on activating the deprecated mode with an intended removal date?
(I'd propose end-of-2014.)
And, perhaps, a compile-time option to disable this earlier, so that
users can choose the stacks they want to build the kernel with.
Thanks,
Lars
--
Architect Storage/HA
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imend?rffer, HRB 21284 (AG N?rnberg)
"Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes." -- Oscar Wilde
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH 0/5] nocontrold: Eliminating ocfs2_controld v3
2013-10-03 11:25 ` Lars Marowsky-Bree
@ 2013-10-04 15:01 ` Goldwyn Rodrigues
2013-10-08 0:06 ` Joel Becker
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Goldwyn Rodrigues @ 2013-10-04 15:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ocfs2-devel
On 10/03/2013 06:25 AM, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> On 2013-10-03T00:48:55, Goldwyn Rodrigues <rgoldwyn@suse.de> wrote:
>
> Hi Goldwyn,
>
> just a minor comment:
>
>> For backward compatibility, we are keeping the controld handling code. Once
>> enough time has passed we can remove a significant portion of the code.
>
> Can we add this to Documentation/fs/ocfs2.txt, or maybe print a one-time
> message on activating the deprecated mode with an intended removal date?
> (I'd propose end-of-2014.)
We already print a message in dmesg saying:
printk(KERN_NOTICE "ocfs2: You seem to be using an older "
"version of dlm_controld and/or ocfs2-tools."
" Please consider upgrading.\n");
Adding a date to this should not be a problem.
>
> And, perhaps, a compile-time option to disable this earlier, so that
> users can choose the stacks they want to build the kernel with.
>
This would a be a couple of ifdef's in user_cluster_connect(). What do
other ocfs2 developers feel about this?
--
Goldwyn
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH 0/5] nocontrold: Eliminating ocfs2_controld v3
2013-10-04 15:01 ` Goldwyn Rodrigues
@ 2013-10-08 0:06 ` Joel Becker
2013-10-08 20:02 ` Lars Marowsky-Bree
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Joel Becker @ 2013-10-08 0:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ocfs2-devel
On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 10:01:34AM -0500, Goldwyn Rodrigues wrote:
> On 10/03/2013 06:25 AM, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> > On 2013-10-03T00:48:55, Goldwyn Rodrigues <rgoldwyn@suse.de> wrote:
> >
> > And, perhaps, a compile-time option to disable this earlier, so that
> > users can choose the stacks they want to build the kernel with.
> >
>
> This would a be a couple of ifdef's in user_cluster_connect(). What do
> other ocfs2 developers feel about this?
We already allow building of o2cb/user stacks via .config. So on that
note it isn't terribly different.
lmb, why do you want to enforce non-controld? Shouldn't it be just fine
to not install controld and let the filesystem detect a modern enough
fs/dlm?
Joel
>
>
> --
> Goldwyn
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ocfs2-devel mailing list
> Ocfs2-devel at oss.oracle.com
> https://oss.oracle.com/mailman/listinfo/ocfs2-devel
--
Life's Little Instruction Book #306
"Take a nap on Sunday afternoons."
http://www.jlbec.org/
jlbec at evilplan.org
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH 0/5] nocontrold: Eliminating ocfs2_controld v3
2013-10-08 0:06 ` Joel Becker
@ 2013-10-08 20:02 ` Lars Marowsky-Bree
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Lars Marowsky-Bree @ 2013-10-08 20:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ocfs2-devel
On 2013-10-07T17:06:09, Joel Becker <jlbec@evilplan.org> wrote:
> We already allow building of o2cb/user stacks via .config. So on that
> note it isn't terribly different.
>
> lmb, why do you want to enforce non-controld? Shouldn't it be just fine
> to not install controld and let the filesystem detect a modern enough
> fs/dlm?
It's mostly an issue of what the distribution kernels wish to support.
One less variable to control for.
We either get that choice upstream or carry an out of tree patch, hence
my proposal to do it upstream ;-)
Regards,
Lars
--
Architect Storage/HA
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imend?rffer, HRB 21284 (AG N?rnberg)
"Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes." -- Oscar Wilde
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH 0/5] nocontrold: Eliminating ocfs2_controld v3
2013-10-03 5:48 [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH 0/5] nocontrold: Eliminating ocfs2_controld v3 Goldwyn Rodrigues
2013-10-03 11:25 ` Lars Marowsky-Bree
@ 2013-10-03 20:30 ` Andrew Morton
1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Morton @ 2013-10-03 20:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ocfs2-devel
On Thu, 3 Oct 2013 00:48:55 -0500 Goldwyn Rodrigues <rgoldwyn@suse.de> wrote:
> This is an effort of removing ocfs2_controld.pcmk and getting ocfs2 DLM
> handling up to the times with respect to DLM (>=4.0.1) and corosync
> (2.3.x). AFAIK, cman also is being phased out for a unified corosync
> cluster stack.
>
> fs/dlm performs all the functions with respect to fencing and node
> management and provides the API's to do so for ocfs2. For all future
> references, DLM stands for fs/dlm code.
>
> The advantages are:
> + No need to run an additional userspace daemon (ocfs2_controld)
> + No contrrold devince handling and controld protocol
> + Shifting responsibilities of node management to DLM layer
>
> For backward compatibility, we are keeping the controld handling code. Once
> enough time has passed we can remove a significant portion of the code.
>
> This feature requires modification in the userspace ocfs2-tools.
> The changes can be found at:
> https://github.com/goldwynr/ocfs2-tools branch: nocontrold
> Currently, not many checks are present in the userspace code,
> but that would change soon.
>
> These changes were developed on linux-stable 3.11.y, though they
> are applicable at the current upstream as well. If you want to give
> the entire kernel a spin, the link is:
>
> https://github.com/goldwynr/linux-stable branch: nocontrold
>
> Changes since v2:
> * Joel's comments: patch re-factoring
> * No need to safeguard cluster_stack
>
> Changes since v1:
> * Backward compatibility with ocfs2_controld
> * Moved cluster_stack change restriction to dlm code
I'm not really sure what to do with this patchset. It's too deep for
me to merge on my own cognizance so I am dependent upon reviews and
acks from ocfs2 specialists before I can move forward. Where are we at
with that?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2013-10-08 20:02 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2013-10-03 5:48 [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH 0/5] nocontrold: Eliminating ocfs2_controld v3 Goldwyn Rodrigues
2013-10-03 11:25 ` Lars Marowsky-Bree
2013-10-04 15:01 ` Goldwyn Rodrigues
2013-10-08 0:06 ` Joel Becker
2013-10-08 20:02 ` Lars Marowsky-Bree
2013-10-03 20:30 ` Andrew Morton
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.