From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sunil Mushran Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2011 18:10:47 -0700 Subject: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH] remove lockres from purge list when we are getting it for creating lock In-Reply-To: <20110610010138.GB3437@laptop.jp.oracle.com> References: <201106080229.p582TILH031715@acsmt356.oracle.com> <4DF108A8.7010307@oracle.com> <20110610010138.GB3437@laptop.jp.oracle.com> Message-ID: <4DF16F17.6030100@oracle.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com On 06/09/2011 06:01 PM, Wengang Wang wrote: > > Yes, you are right. There is such a problem that the lockres can be > added to purge list after we drop dlm->spinlock. I am not sure if it's the more > likely case since there is a 8 seconds delay between the the time the lockres is > added to purge list and the time it is purged. I guess in normal case, the create- > lock should already finished in the 8 seconds. > > I considered about the inflight_locks. But I didn't think it well so far. > Because simply moving the lockres out from purge list is not good > enough, I will take a good think about making use of inflight_locks. > >> Secondly, we currently manipulate the purgelist in one function only. >> __dlm_calc_lockres_usage(). We should stick to that. > If we make good use of inflight_locks, I think we can. >> BTW, how are you testing this? > I tested with the steps which can cause the original problem to prove it > works.(but without UT). > Also I made a regression test with the existing ocfs2-test suites(the > multiple-xxx with reducing interations). What's UT? I am looking for is a testcase that reliably reproduces the problem. Not necessarily that can be checked in. But something that triggers the issue.