[Ocfs2-devel] Can recovery be done in process context (as opposed to kthread)?

[Ocfs2-devel] Can recovery be done in process context (as opposed to kthread)?

[Goldwyn Rodrigues]

Hi,

I finally got back to improve the recovery procedure by offloading
work to work queues. However, I would like to know if we can
completely do away with ocfs2rec kthread. The process would just mark
the nodes which need recovery and offload the work on the work queues
and wait until all is over.

The reason for doing it this way is to make the mount process
killable. Currently the dlm locks are taken by ocfs2rec kthread while
the mount waits in uninterruptible sleep while the recovery happens.

This would help the High Availability software which send signals to
mount procedure if it does not complete within timeout. This usually
happens when journal takes a long time to replay; especially for nodes
waiting for recovery to complete and not doing the actual recovery.

Consider one node down procedure in the middle of I/O on a mounted
system as well.

We could keep the kthread with co-ordination as well.

-- 
Goldwyn

[Ocfs2-devel] Can recovery be done in process context (as opposed to kthread)?

[Sunil Mushran]

On 09/09/2011 03:22 PM, Goldwyn Rodrigues wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I finally got back to improve the recovery procedure by offloading
> work to work queues. However, I would like to know if we can
> completely do away with ocfs2rec kthread. The process would just mark
> the nodes which need recovery and offload the work on the work queues
> and wait until all is over.
>
> The reason for doing it this way is to make the mount process
> killable. Currently the dlm locks are taken by ocfs2rec kthread while
> the mount waits in uninterruptible sleep while the recovery happens.
>
> This would help the High Availability software which send signals to
> mount procedure if it does not complete within timeout. This usually
> happens when journal takes a long time to replay; especially for nodes
> waiting for recovery to complete and not doing the actual recovery.
>
> Consider one node down procedure in the middle of I/O on a mounted
> system as well.
>
> We could keep the kthread with co-ordination as well.

I am not sure what that buys. The focus should be fixing what
ever that got the reco stuck in the first place. For the most
part, it gets stuck for reasons unrelated to ocfs2. Our focus
has been on allowing users to quickly identify the "bad" node
quickly.

[Ocfs2-devel] Can recovery be done in process context (as opposed to kthread)?

[Joel Becker]

On Fri, Sep 09, 2011 at 05:22:49PM -0500, Goldwyn Rodrigues wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I finally got back to improve the recovery procedure by offloading
> work to work queues. However, I would like to know if we can
> completely do away with ocfs2rec kthread. The process would just mark
> the nodes which need recovery and offload the work on the work queues
> and wait until all is over.
> 
> The reason for doing it this way is to make the mount process
> killable. Currently the dlm locks are taken by ocfs2rec kthread while
> the mount waits in uninterruptible sleep while the recovery happens.

	If the mount dies, but then actually succeeds in the
background...that's weird and violates the Principle of Least Surprise.

Joel

-- 

"Conservative, n.  A statesman who is enamoured of existing evils,
 as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them
 with others."
	- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

			http://www.jlbec.org/
			jlbec at evilplan.org