Srini,
On 11-06-08 22:17, Srinivas Eeda wrote:
I think I have seen this problem in ocfs2-1.2 and it was addressed
by using a new state DLM_LOCK_RES_IN_USE. But we didn't merge into
mainline as sunil suggested we need to look for a different approach
+ spin_unlock(tmpres-spinlock);
+ spin_unlock(dlm-spinlock);
lockres could still get added to purgelist at this point and we
could still have the same problem? I think, here we need some
mechanism that marks the lockres is in use that would protect it
from adding to the
Srini,
Yes, you are right! Agree!
Sunil,
My privious patch which checks if lockres is unhashed can't fix the
problem that can't find lockres in ast handler. So I vote for Srini's
patch.
what's your comment?
thanks,
wengang.
On 11-06-09 00:43, Srinivas Eeda wrote:
+
On 06/08/2011 03:04 AM, Wengang Wang wrote:
When we are to purge a lockres, we check if it's unused.
the check includes
1. no locks attached to the lockres.
2. not dirty.
3. not in recovery.
4. no interested nodes in refmap.
If the the above four are satisfied, we are going to purge
On 06/09/2011 06:01 PM, Wengang Wang wrote:
Yes, you are right. There is such a problem that the lockres can be
added to purge list after we drop dlm-spinlock. I am not sure if it's the
more
likely case since there is a 8 seconds delay between the the time the lockres
is
added to purge
I think I have seen this problem in ocfs2-1.2 and it was addressed by
using a new state DLM_LOCK_RES_IN_USE. But we didn't merge into mainline
as sunil suggested we need to look for a different approach
http://oss.oracle.com/pipermail/ocfs2-devel/2010-June/006669.html
