On Thu, Oct 03, 2024 at 11:00:20PM +0200, Martin Wilck wrote:
> On Thu, 2024-09-12 at 17:49 -0400, Benjamin Marzinski wrote:
> > Instead of updating the path priorities and possibly reloading the
> > multipath device when each path is updated, wait till all paths
> > have been updated, and then go through the multipath devices updating
> > the priorities once, reloading if necessary.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Benjamin Marzinski <bmarz...@redhat.com>
> > ---
> > libmultipath/structs.h | 9 +++
> > multipathd/main.c | 169 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
> > --
> > 2 files changed, 118 insertions(+), 60 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/libmultipath/structs.h b/libmultipath/structs.h
> > index af8e31e9..1f531d30 100644
> > --- a/libmultipath/structs.h
> > +++ b/libmultipath/structs.h
> > @@ -318,6 +318,7 @@ enum check_path_states {
> > CHECK_PATH_UNCHECKED,
> > CHECK_PATH_STARTED,
> > CHECK_PATH_CHECKED,
> > + CHECK_PATH_NEW_UP,
> > CHECK_PATH_SKIPPED,
> > CHECK_PATH_REMOVED,
> > };
> > @@ -421,6 +422,13 @@ enum prflag_value {
> > PRFLAG_SET,
> > };
> >
> > +enum prio_update_type {
> > + PRIO_UPDATE_NONE,
> > + PRIO_UPDATE_NORMAL,
> > + PRIO_UPDATE_NEW_PATH,
> > + PRIO_UPDATE_MARGINAL,
> > +};
> > +
> > struct multipath {
> > char wwid[WWID_SIZE];
> > char alias_old[WWID_SIZE];
> > @@ -464,6 +472,7 @@ struct multipath {
> > int queue_mode;
> > unsigned int sync_tick;
> > int synced_count;
> > + enum prio_update_type prio_update;
> > uid_t uid;
> > gid_t gid;
> > mode_t mode;
> > diff --git a/multipathd/main.c b/multipathd/main.c
> > index 9519b6c5..3cda3c18 100644
> > --- a/multipathd/main.c
> > +++ b/multipathd/main.c
> > @@ -1996,15 +1996,13 @@ mpvec_garbage_collector (struct vectors *
> > vecs)
> > * best pathgroup, and this is the first path in the pathgroup to
> > come back
> > * up, then switch to this pathgroup */
> > static int
> > -followover_should_failback(struct path * pp)
> > +do_followover_should_failback(struct path * pp)
> > {
> > struct pathgroup * pgp;
> > struct path *pp1;
> > int i;
> >
> > - if (pp->mpp->pgfailback != -FAILBACK_FOLLOWOVER ||
> > - !pp->mpp->pg || !pp->pgindex ||
> > - pp->pgindex != pp->mpp->bestpg)
> > + if (!pp->pgindex || pp->pgindex != pp->mpp->bestpg)
> > return 0;
> >
> > pgp = VECTOR_SLOT(pp->mpp->pg, pp->pgindex - 1);
> > @@ -2017,6 +2015,26 @@ followover_should_failback(struct path * pp)
> > return 1;
> > }
> >
> > +static int
> > +followover_should_failback(struct multipath *mpp)
> > +{
> > + struct path *pp;
> > + struct pathgroup * pgp;
> > + int i, j;
> > +
> > + if (mpp->pgfailback != -FAILBACK_FOLLOWOVER || !mpp->pg)
> > + return 0;
> > +
> > + vector_foreach_slot (mpp->pg, pgp, i) {
> > + vector_foreach_slot (pgp->paths, pp, j) {
> > + if (pp->is_checked == CHECK_PATH_NEW_UP &&
> > + do_followover_should_failback(pp))
> > + return 1;
> > + }
> > + }
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > static void
> > missing_uev_wait_tick(struct vectors *vecs)
> > {
> > @@ -2132,41 +2150,53 @@ partial_retrigger_tick(vector pathvec)
> > }
> > }
> >
> > -static int update_prio(struct path *pp, int force_refresh_all)
> > +static bool update_prio(struct multipath *mpp, bool refresh_all)
> > {
> > int oldpriority;
> > - struct path *pp1;
> > + struct path *pp;
> > struct pathgroup * pgp;
> > - int i, j, changed = 0;
> > + int i, j;
> > + bool changed = false;
> > + bool skipped_path = false;
> > struct config *conf;
> >
> > - oldpriority = pp->priority;
> > - if (pp->state != PATH_DOWN) {
> > - conf = get_multipath_config();
> > - pthread_cleanup_push(put_multipath_config, conf);
> > - pathinfo(pp, conf, DI_PRIO);
> > - pthread_cleanup_pop(1);
> > + vector_foreach_slot (mpp->pg, pgp, i) {
> > + vector_foreach_slot (pgp->paths, pp, j) {
> > + if (pp->state == PATH_DOWN)
> > + continue;
> > + if (!refresh_all &&
> > + pp->is_checked != CHECK_PATH_CHECKED) {
> > + skipped_path = true;
> > + continue;
> > + }
>
> Nit: My first thought here was that this would skip paths for which
> pp->is_checked == CHECK_PATH_NEW_UP. Then I realized that if there was
> a new path up, refresh_all would be set, which is not immediately
> obvious. Can you add a comment?
Sure.
>
> Martin
