[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH 00/12] A dm-raid45 target implemented using md raid5.



On Fri, 2010-04-16 at 08:14 +1000, Neil Brown wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 19:27:15 +0200
> Heinz Mauelshagen <heinzm redhat com> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Hi Neil,
> > 
> > had a first go reading through your patch series w/o finding any major
> > issues. The only important feature for an initial release which needs
> > adding (as you mentioned) is (persistent) dirty log support.
> > 
> > Because you're using a persistent bitmap in the MD RAID personalities,
> > this looks like a bit more surgery to factor it out to potentially
> > enhance dm-log.c. For an initial solution we can as well just go with
> > MDs existing bitmap while keeping the dm-raid456 ctr support for
> > explicit dirty logging in order to avoid compatibility issues (there's
> > obviously no parameter to support bitmap chunk sizes so far).
> 
> I don't think we can use md's existing bitmap support as there is no easy way
> to store it on an arbitrary target:  it either lives near the metadata or on
> a file (not a device).
> There a just a few calls in the interface to md/bitmap.c - it shouldn't be
> too hard to make those selectively call into a dm_dirty_log instead.

Good, it was my thinking if using dm-dirty-log interface, that there are
some MD bitmap code valuables we could factor out (bitmap flushing
enhancements?).

> 
> I want to do something like that anyway as I want to optionally be able to use
> a dirty log which is a list of dirty sector addresses rather than a bitmap.
> I'll have a look next week.

Ok.

> 
> And the "bitmap chunk size" is exactly the same as the dm "region size".
> (which would probably have been a better name to choose for md too).

Fair enough.

> 
> > 
> > Reshaping could be triggered either preferably via the constructor
> > involving MD metadata reads to be able to recognize the size change
> > requested or the message interface. Both ctr/message support could be
> > implemented sharing the same functions. Enhancements in the status
> > interface and dm_table_event() throwing on error/finish are mandatory if
> > we support reshaping.
> 
> I imagine enhancing the constructor to take before/after values for
> type, disks, chunksize, and a sector which marks where "after" starts.
> You also need to know which direction the reshape is going (low addresses to
> high addresses, or the reverse) though that might be implicit in the other
> values.

Yes, that can be additional ctr variable parameters allowing for a
compatible enhancement.

One possibility could be using variable parameters from free #8 on:

o to_raid_type		# may be existing one; eg. raid6_zr
o to_chunk_size		# new requested chunk size in sectors
o old_size		# actual size of the array
o low_to_high/high_to_low # low->high or high->low addresses

ti->len defines the new intended size while old_size provides the actual
size of the array.

> 
> > 
> > A shortcoming of this MD wrapping solution vs. dm-raid45 is, that there
> > is no obvious way to leverage it to be a clustered RAID456 mapping
> > target. dm-raid45 has been designed with that future enhancement
> > possibility in mind.
> > 
> 
> I haven't given cluster locking a lot of thought...
> I would probably do the locking on a per-"stripe_head" basis as everything
> revolves around that structure.

Makes sense. I was also thinking about tying stripe invalidation to lock
state changes.

> Get a shared lock when servicing a read (Which would only happen on a
> degraded array - normally reads bypass the stripe cache), or a write lock
> when servicing a write or a resync.

Yes, an exclusive DLM lock.

> It should all interface with DLM quite well - when DLM tries to reclaim a lock
> we first mark all the stripe as not up-to-date...

When a dm-raid45(6) instance tries to reclaim either lock *after* it had
to drop it before, it has to invalidate the respective stripe date.

> 
> Does DM simply use DLM for locking or something else?

We don't use the DLM from DM yet, but essentially: yes, you'ld call
dlm_new_lockspace(), dlm_lock(..., DLM_LOCK_{CR|EX}, ...), ...

Of course such locking has to be abstracted in dm-raid456 in order to
plug in NULL, clustered, locking modules.

Cheers,
Heinz

> 
> 
> > Will try testing your code tomorrow.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> NeilBrown
> 
> --
> dm-devel mailing list
> dm-devel redhat com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel



[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]