From: David Teigland <teigland@redhat.com>
To: cluster-devel.redhat.com
Subject: [Cluster-devel] Patch: making DLM more robust
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 12:30:51 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20101130173051.GB27123@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4CF52D0E.2020800@bull.net>
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 05:57:50PM +0100, Menyhart Zoltan wrote:
> Hi,
>
> An easy first step to make DLM more robust can be adding a time out protection
> to the lock space cration operation, while waiting for a "dlm_controld" action.
> A new memeber "ci_dlm_controld_secs" is added to "dlm_config" to set up time out
> in seconds, DEFAULT_DLM_CTRL_SECS is 5 seconds.
>
> At the same time, signals can be enabled and handled, too.
>
> DLM_USER_CREATE_LOCKSPACE will be able to return new error codes:
> -EINTR or -ETIMEDOUT.
>
> Could you please tell me why the signals are blocked within "device_write()"?
> I think it is safe to allow signals, surely in your original code sequences
> waiting in an uninterruptible way.
Thanks, I'll take a look; as long as it's disabled by default I don't
expect I'd object much. There are two main problems with this idea,
though, that need to be handled before it's generally usable:
1. The kernel can wait on user space indefinately during completely normal
situations, e.g. the loss of quorum or fencing failures can delay
completion indefinately. This means you can easily introduce false
failures when using a timeout. EINTR, since it's driven by user
intervention, is a better idea, e.g. killing a mount process.
2. The difficulty, even with EINTR, is correctly and cleanly unwinding the
dlm_controld state.
Dave
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-11-30 17:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-11-22 16:31 [Cluster-devel] "->ls_in_recovery" not released Menyhart Zoltan
2010-11-22 17:34 ` David Teigland
2010-11-23 14:58 ` Menyhart Zoltan
2010-11-23 17:15 ` David Teigland
2010-11-24 16:13 ` Menyhart Zoltan
2010-11-24 20:29 ` David Teigland
2010-11-30 16:57 ` [Cluster-devel] Patch: making DLM more robust Menyhart Zoltan
2010-11-30 17:30 ` David Teigland [this message]
2010-12-01 9:23 ` Menyhart Zoltan
2010-12-01 17:27 ` David Teigland
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=20101130173051.GB27123@redhat.com \
--to=teigland@redhat.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).