[Cluster-devel] [PATCH 0/4 Revised] NLM - lock failover

[Wendy Cheng <wcheng@redhat.com>]

Neil Brown wrote:
> On Tuesday April 17, wcheng at redhat.com wrote:
>   
>> In short, my vote is taking this (NLM) patch set and let people try it 
>> out while we switch our gear to look into other NFS V3 failover issues 
>> (nfsd in particular). Neil ?
>>     
>
> I agree with Christoph in that we should do it properly.
> That doesn't mean that we need a complete solution.  But we do want to
> make sure to avoid any design decisions that we might not want to be
> stuck with.  Sometimes that's unavoidable, but let's try a little
> harder for the moment.
>   

As any code review, set personal feeling aside, at the end of the day, 
you would start to appreciate some of the look-like-harsh comments. This 
instance is definitely one of that moments. I agree we should try harder.

NFS failover has been a difficult subject. There is a three-years-old 
Red Hat bugzilla asking for this feature, plus few others marked as 
duplicate. By reading through the comments last night, I do feel 
strongly that we should put restrictions on the implementation to avoid 
dragging users into another three more years.

> One thing that has been bothering me is that sometimes the
> "filesystem" (in the guise of an fsid) is used to talk to the kernel
> about failover issues (when flushing locks or restarting the grace
> period) and sometimes the local network address is used (when talking
> with statd). 
>
> I would rather use a single identifier.  In my previous email I was
> leaning towards using the filesystem as the single identifier.  Today
> I'm leaning the other way - to using the local network address.
>
> It works like this:
>
>   We have a module parameter for lockd something like
>   "virtual_server".
>   If that is set to 0, none of the following changes are effective.
>   If it is set to 1:
>
>    The destination address for any lockd request becomes part of the
>    key to find the nsm_handle.
>    The my_name field in SM_MON requests and SM_UNMON requests is set
>    to a textual representation of that destination address.
>    The reply to SM_MON (currently completely ignored by all versions
>    of Linux) has an extra value which indicates how many more seconds
>    of grace period there is to go.  This can be stuffed into res_stat
>    maybe.
>    Places where we currently check 'nlmsvc_grace_period', get moved to
>    *after* the nlmsvc_retrieve_args call, and the grace_period value
>    is extracted from host->nsm.
>
>   This is the full extent of the kernel changes.
>
>   To remove old locks, we arrange for the callbacks registered with
>   statd for the relevant clients to be called.
>   To set the grace period, we make sure statd knows about it and it
>   will return the relevant information to lockd.
>   To notify clients of the need to reclaim locks, we simple use the
>   information stored by statd, which contains the local network
>   address.
>
> The only aspect of this that gives me any cause for concern is
> overloading the return value for SM_MON.  Possibly it might be cleaner
> to define an SM_MON2 with different args or whatever.
> As this interface is entirely local to the one machine, and as it can
> quite easily be kept back-compatible, I think the concept is fine.
>
> Statd would need to pass the my_name field to the ha callout rather
> than replacing it with "127.0.0.1", but other than that I don't think
> any changes are needed to statd (though I haven't thought through that
> fully yet).
>
> Comments?
>
>   
Need sometime to look into the ramifications ... comment will follow soon.

-- Wendy