What was the test that led to this? -Krutika ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Emmanuel Dreyfus" <[email protected]> > To: "Krutika Dhananjay" <[email protected]> > Cc: "Emmanuel Dreyfus" <[email protected]>, "Gluster Devel" > <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, December 3, 2014 2:27:21 PM > Subject: Re: [Gluster-devel] question on glustershd > On F_WRLCKed, Dec 03, 2014 at 01:39:56AM -0500, Krutika Dhananjay wrote: > > Come to think of it, it does not really matter whether the two bricks are > > on the same node or not. > > In either case, there may not be a lock contention between healers > > associated with different bricks, irrespective of whether they are part of > > the same SHD or SHDs on different nodes. > The traces I have been collecting suggest the two healers locks the same > inodes Here is what happens when gluster volume heal full is invoked: > two inodes, each of them locking on each subvolume. > [afr-self-heald.c:699:afr_shd_full_healer] > 0-patchy-replicate-0: starting full sweep on subvol patchy-client-0 > [afr-self-heald.c:699:afr_shd_full_healer] > 0-patchy-replicate-0: starting full sweep on subvol patchy-client-1 > [afr-self-heal-metadata.c:328:afr_selfheal_metadata] > 0-XXXmanu: afr_selfheal_tryinodelk 3fb88af1-fe9b-421a-a197-3bf2fc88768b > [client.c:1672:client_inodelk] > 0-XXXmanu: INODELK patchy-replicate-0:self-heal patchy-client-0 F_WRLCK > [client.c:1672:client_inodelk] > 0-XXXmanu: INODELK patchy-replicate-0:self-heal patchy-client-1 F_WRLCK > [afr-self-heal-metadata.c:328:afr_selfheal_metadata] > 0-XXXmanu: afr_selfheal_tryinodelk 3fb88af1-fe9b-421a-a197-3bf2fc88768b > [client.c:1672:client_inodelk] > 0-XXXmanu: INODELK patchy-replicate-0:self-heal patchy-client-0 F_WRLCK > [client.c:1672:client_inodelk] > 0-XXXmanu: INODELK patchy-replicate-0:self-heal patchy-client-1 F_WRLCK > -- > Emmanuel Dreyfus > [email protected]
_______________________________________________ Gluster-devel mailing list [email protected] http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
