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

Re: [Linux-cluster] Some GDLM questions

On Sat, Jul 03, 2004 at 10:33:56AM -0400, Jeff wrote:
> These are from reviewing http://people.redhat.com/~teigland/sca.pdf
> and the CVS copy of cluster/dlm/doc/libdlm.txt.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> If a program requests a lock on the AST side can it wait for
> the lock to complete without returning from the original AST
> routine?  Would it use the poll/select mechanism to do this?

In kernel space you shouldn't wait or do much work in the AST routine or
you can block the kernel's AST delivery thread. You can call dlm_lock() in an
AST routine though.

In userspace you can do pretty much what you like in the AST routine as (by
default) they run in a seperate thread - see libdlm for more details on this.
> What's the best way to implement a blocking lock request in
> an application where some requests are synchronous and some
> are asynchronous? Use semop() after the lock request and in 
> the lock completion routine? Is semop() safe to call from
> a thread on Linux? Would pthread_cond_wait()/pthread_cond_signal()
> be better?

pthreads are recommended for userspace locking. As I mentioned above libdlm
uses pthreads (though you can switch this off if you want a non-threaded
application and are prepared to do the work yourself).
> Does conversion deadlock occur only when a conversion is
> about to be queued and its granted/requested state is 
> incompatible with another lock already on the conversion queue?
> (eg. there is a PR->EX conversion queued and another PR->EX
> conversion is about to be queued)

> Other DLMs do not deliver a blocking AST to a lock which is not
> on the granted queue. This means that a lock which queued for
> conversion will not get a blocking AST if it is interfering with
> another lock being added to the conversion queue. Does GDLM do this 
> as well or are blocking ASTs delivered to all locks regardless of 
> their state?

Blocking ASTs are sent to locks on the granted queue.
> libdlm.txt has a vague comment which reads:
>    One further point about lockspace operations is that there is no locking
>    on the creating/destruction of lockspaces in the library so it is up to
>    the application to only call dlm_*_lockspace when it is sure that
>    no other locking operations are likely to be happening.
> Does this mean 'no other locking operations' by the process which is
> creating the lockspace? no other requests to create a lock space on
> that cluster member? in the cluster as a whole?

No other locking operation in that process tree.
> Possible Enhancements:
> ----------------------
> The following two items are areas where GDLM appears to differ from
> the DLMs from HP and IBM (eg for VMS, Tru64, AIX and OpenDLM for
> Linux which is derived from IBM's DLM for AIX). These differences 
> aren't incompatible with GFS's requirements and could be implemented 
> as optional behaviors. I'd be happy to work on patches for
> these if they would be welcome.
> GDLM is described as granting new lock requests as long as they 
> are compatible with the existing lock mode regardless of the 
> existence of a conversion queue. The other DLMs mentioned above
> always queue new lock requests if there are any locks on the conversion 
> queue. Certain mechanisms can't be implemented without this kind of
> ordering. Would it be possible to make the alternate behavior a property 
> of the lock space or a property of a grant request so it can be 
> utilized where necessary?

I'm ashamed to admit I didn't know this - we can add it as a lockspace option
I think.

> Certain tasks are simplified if the return status of a lock indicates
> whether it was granted immediately or ended up on the waiting queue.
> Other DLMs which have both synchronous and asynchronous completion
> mechanisms implement this via a flag which requests synchronous
> completion if the lock is available, otherwise the request is queued
> and the asynchronous mechanism is used. This is particularly useful 
> for deadman locks that control recovery to distinguish between 
> the first instance of a service to start and recovery conditions.
> There are other (more complex) techniques to implement this but 
> even though GDLM is purely an asynchronous mechanism, it still would 
> be possible for the completion status to indicate (if requested) 
> whether the lock was granted immediately or not.

Off-hand I'm not sure how complex this would be to implement, I'll have a think
about it.



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