Hi
I uploaded a new version there. It has selective re-read and it has
optimized locking --- it does no remote communication if the chunk
already
exists, so it should be as efficient as Jon's approach.
Jon, please look at it and review the patches, if you find out that
this
approach can't work at all, we can drop it and go with your
approach. If
it is OK, we can consider adopting it, it looks simpler than making
clustered-exception-store.
Mikulas
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
Hi
I uploaded my test clustered snapshots to
http://people.redhat.com/mpatocka/patches/kernel/clustered-snapshots-preview/
My patches take different approach from Jon's patches. My patches
basically replace down_write(&s->lock) and up_write(&s->lock) with
clusterized locking.
If there are pending exceptions, the cluster lock must be held
while the
local lock is unlocked. The cluster lock is droppen when all pending
exceptions are reallocated and the local lock is dropped.
The patches are based on my & Mike's merging.
These patches are less invasive than Jon's, they area small, they
don't
change so much logic and most importantly, they leave merging as it
is.
Note that it was never tried in a cluster because I don't have a
cluster!!
So there may be a silly bug that makes it not work at all. The
purpose of
the patches is to show different simpler approach to clustering. You
should test it and debug it.
TODO:
- implement lock caching (Jon's task for his dm-lock module)
- once we implement it, we can implement selective re-read --- i.e.
don't
reread the exceptions if the cluster lock was not taken by any
other node
- in a few cases we could optimize it to use readlock or only local
lock
- implemented cluster merging
Mikulas