[Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH] ocfs2/dlm: wait for dlm recovery done when migrating all lockres

[piaojun]

Hi Changwei,

I had tried a solution like yours before, but failed to prevent the
race just by 'dlm_state' and the existed variable as
'DLM_CTXT_IN_SHUTDOWN' contains many status. so I think we need
introduce a 'migrate_done' to solve that problem.

thanks,
Jun

On 2017/11/1 17:00, Changwei Ge wrote:
> Hi Jun,
> 
> On 2017/11/1 16:46, piaojun wrote:
>> Hi Changwei,
>>
>> I do think we need follow the principle that use 'dlm_domain_lock' to
>> protect 'dlm_state' as the NOTE says in 'dlm_ctxt':
>> /* NOTE: Next three are protected by dlm_domain_lock */
>>
>> deadnode won't be cleared from 'dlm->domain_map' if return from
>> __dlm_hb_node_down(), and NodeA will retry migrating to NodeB forever
>> if only NodeA and NodeB in domain. I suggest more testing needed in
>> your solution.
> 
> I agree, however, my patch is just a draft to indicate my comments.
> 
> Perhaps we can figure out a better way to solve this, as your patch 
> can't clear DLM RECOVERING flag on lock resource. I am not sure if it is 
> reasonable, I suppose this may violate ocfs2/dlm design philosophy.
> 
> Thanks,
> Changwei
> 

if res is marked as DLM RECOVERING, migrating process will wait for
recoverying done. and DLM RECOVERING will be cleared after recoverying.

>>
>> thanks,
>> Jun
>>
>> On 2017/11/1 16:11, Changwei Ge wrote:
>>> Hi Jun,
>>>
>>> Thanks for reviewing.
>>> I don't think we have to worry about misusing *dlm_domain_lock* and
>>> *dlm::spinlock*. I admit my change may look a little different from most
>>> of other code snippets where using these two spin locks. But our purpose
>>> is to close the race between __dlm_hb_node_down and
>>> dlm_unregister_domain, right?  And my change meets that. :-)
>>>
>>> I suppose we can do it in a flexible way.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Changwei
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2017/11/1 15:57, piaojun wrote:
>>>> Hi Changwei,
>>>>
>>>> thanks for reviewing, and I think waiting for recoverying done before
>>>> migrating seems another solution, but I wonder if new problems will be
>>>> invoked as following comments.
>>>>
>>>> thanks,
>>>> Jun
>>>>
>>>> On 2017/11/1 15:13, Changwei Ge wrote:
>>>>> Hi Jun,
>>>>>
>>>>> I probably get your point.
>>>>>
>>>>> You mean that dlm finds no lock resource to be migrated and no more lock
>>>>> resource is managed by its hash table. After that a node dies all of a
>>>>> sudden and the dead node is put into dlm's recovery map, right?
>>>> that is it.
>>>>> Furthermore, a lock resource is migrated from other nodes and local node
>>>>> has already asserted master to them.
>>>>>
>>>>> If so, I want to suggest a easier way to solve it.
>>>>> We don't have to add a new flag to dlm structure, just leverage existed
>>>>> dlm status and bitmap.
>>>>> It will bring a bonus - no lock resource will be marked with RECOVERING,
>>>>> it's a safer way, I suppose.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please take a review.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Changwei
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Subject: [PATCH] ocfs2/dlm: a node can't be involved in recovery if it
>>>>> is being shutdown
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Changwei Ge <ge.changwei at h3c.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>     fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmdomain.c   | 4 ++++
>>>>>     fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmrecovery.c | 3 +++
>>>>>     2 files changed, 7 insertions(+)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmdomain.c b/fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmdomain.c
>>>>> index a2b19fbdcf46..5e9283e509a4 100644
>>>>> --- a/fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmdomain.c
>>>>> +++ b/fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmdomain.c
>>>>> @@ -707,11 +707,15 @@ void dlm_unregister_domain(struct dlm_ctxt *dlm)
>>>>>     		 * want new domain joins to communicate with us at
>>>>>     		 * least until we've completed migration of our
>>>>>     		 * resources. */
>>>>> +		spin_lock(&dlm->spinlock);
>>>>>     		dlm->dlm_state = DLM_CTXT_IN_SHUTDOWN;
>>>>> +		spin_unlock(&dlm->spinlock);
>>>> I guess there will be misuse of 'dlm->spinlock' and dlm_domain_lock.
>>>>>     		leave = 1;
>>>>>     	}
>>>>>     	spin_unlock(&dlm_domain_lock);
>>>>>
>>>>> +	dlm_wait_for_recovery(dlm);
>>>>> +
>>>>>     	if (leave) {
>>>>>     		mlog(0, "shutting down domain %s\n", dlm->name);
>>>>>     		dlm_begin_exit_domain(dlm);
>>>>> diff --git a/fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmrecovery.c b/fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmrecovery.c
>>>>> index 74407c6dd592..764c95b2b35c 100644
>>>>> --- a/fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmrecovery.c
>>>>> +++ b/fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmrecovery.c
>>>>> @@ -2441,6 +2441,9 @@ static void __dlm_hb_node_down(struct dlm_ctxt
>>>>> *dlm, int idx)
>>>>>     {
>>>>>     	assert_spin_locked(&dlm->spinlock);
>>>>>
>>>>> +	if (dlm->dlm_state == DLM_CTXT_IN_SHUTDOWN)
>>>>> +		return;
>>>>> +
>>>> 'dlm->dlm_state' probably need be to protected by 'dlm_domain_lock'.
>>>> and I wander if there is more work to be done when in
>>>> 'DLM_CTXT_IN_SHUTDOWN'?
>>>>>     	if (dlm->reco.new_master == idx) {
>>>>>     		mlog(0, "%s: recovery master %d just died\n",
>>>>>     		     dlm->name, idx);
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> .
>>>
>>
> 
> .
>