All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: shencanquan <shencanquan@huawei.com>
To: ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com
Subject: [Ocfs2-devel] unlink: why does try_open_lock fail on directory but works for a file?
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:03:10 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <51B9285E.5070709@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJtY7HWQmBkZAhcAU3z3zcnDn6ZKdSWpt3WTYUPfSK+K194Ugw@mail.gmail.com>

On 2013/6/10 20:11, Goldwyn Rodrigues wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 5:09 AM, shencanquan<shencanquan@huawei.com>  wrote:
>> On 2013/6/8 22:34, Goldwyn Rodrigues wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I am trying to understand why the unlinks (distributed) are slow with
>>> ocfs2. My investigation so far has revealed that ocfs2_try_open_lock
>>> fails on the directory unlinked but works for a file unlinked. This
>>> creates a checkpoint everytime a directory is deleted.. slowing
>>> transactions following it.
>>>
>>> To explain the problem, consider the following scenario:
>>>
>>> On node A, I create multiple directories say d1-d8, and each have 3
>>> files under it f1, f2 and f3.
>>> On node B, I delete all directories using rm -Rf d*
>>>
>>> The FS first unlinks f1, f2 and f3. However, when it performs
>>> ocfs2_evict_inode() ->   ocfs2_delete_inode() ->
>>> ocfs2_query_inode_wipe() ->   ocfs2_try_open_lock() on d1, it fails.
>>   on directory d1 it fail to call ocfs2_try_open_lock, it mean other node has
>> lock the open lock. it maybe node A has open the directory d1?
> This is a self-fabricated test and I just created the directory using
> mkdir and files using touch Yes, it is possible that the PR open lock
> is still on the directory.
>
>>> This starts a checkpoint because OCFS2_INODE_DELETED flag is not set
>>> on the directory inode.
>>>
>>> Now, a checkpoint interferes with the journaling of the inodes deleted
>>> in the following unlinks, in our case, directories d2-d8 and the files
>>> contained in it.
>>>
>>> So why do the files get the open_lock but the directories don't?
>>    I don't think that the directory don't use the open_lock, otherwise it
>> will be success to call the ocfs2_try_open_lock.
> Do you mean to say directories don't use open_lock. Could you provide
> the code/design reference?
     No , I think the directories use the open_lock. because the 
open_lock use to check the other node  had opened the file or directory 
in the ocfs2 cluster. if yes , it can't delete the file or directory on 
the disk.
>
>

      reply	other threads:[~2013-06-13  2:03 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-06-08 14:34 [Ocfs2-devel] unlink: why does try_open_lock fail on directory but works for a file? Goldwyn Rodrigues
2013-06-10 10:09 ` shencanquan
2013-06-10 12:11   ` Goldwyn Rodrigues
2013-06-13  2:03     ` shencanquan [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=51B9285E.5070709@huawei.com \
    --to=shencanquan@huawei.com \
    --cc=ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
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.