Summary: ntfa: Lower mds priority for initialize msg [#1818] V2
Review request for Trac Ticket(s): 1818
Peer Reviewer(s): Lennart, Praveen
Pull request to: Praveen
Affected branch(es): all active branches
Development branch: default
--------------------------------
Impacted area Impact y/n
--------------------------------
Docs n
Build system n
RPM/packaging n
Configuration files n
Startup scripts n
SAF services y
OpenSAF services n
Core libraries n
Samples n
Tests n
Other n
Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above):
---------------------------------------------
This V2 is the same V1, it updates the patch description
changeset d0f03e346a8196f65dfb3c42aa4245e9da02e384
Author: Minh Hon Chau <minh.c...@dektech.com.au>
Date: Mon, 30 May 2016 13:37:02 +1000
ntfa: Lower intialize req message [#1818] V2
When running life cycle APIs from multiple handles in multiple threads,
ntfd
processes the previous NCSMDS_DOWN event from last finalize after
processes
following initialze. This will unexpectedly delete all clients which are
running due to late processing NCSMDS_DOWN.
The problem is seen by sometimes (1) there's a shortcoming NCSMDS_DOWN
from
last finialize coming after next initialize req message at mds callback.
Also, (2) another problem in ntfd, which is sending
NTFSV_NTFS_EVT_NTFA_DOWN
with lower priority than NTFSV_NTFS_NTFSV_MSG. This various prioriy will
also cause ntfd process NCSMDS_DOWN after next intialize even
NCSMDS_DOWN
coming before initialize req message at mds callback.
At this stage, for the problem (1), it is not sure whether or not this
is
mds issue, since all APIs have been sent with high priority. This patch
lowers send priority of initialize request msg, which gives a chance of
all
messages following last finalize response message coming to ntfd. For
the
problem (2), given that NCSMDOWN and intialize req message coming to
ntfd in
correct order at mds callback, now those events will be sent to ntfd's
mailbox with the same priority (MDS_SEND_PRIORITY_MEDIUM =
NCS_IPC_PRIORITY_NORMAL). The unexpected client deletion as described
above
should not be seen. After this patch, if this problem is seen again, it
most
likely from mds who does not ensure NCSMDS_DOWN and intialize req are
respectively sent from Agent and received at NTFD in right timing order.
Complete diffstat:
------------------
osaf/libs/agents/saf/ntfa/ntfa_mds.c | 11 ++++++++++-
1 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
Testing Commands:
-----------------
<<LIST THE COMMAND LINE TOOLS/STEPS TO TEST YOUR CHANGES>>
Testing, Expected Results:
--------------------------
<<PASTE COMMAND OUTPUTS / TEST RESULTS>>
Conditions of Submission:
-------------------------
<<HOW MANY DAYS BEFORE PUSHING, CONSENSUS ETC>>
Arch Built Started Linux distro
-------------------------------------------
mips n n
mips64 n n
x86 n n
x86_64 y y
powerpc n n
powerpc64 n n
Reviewer Checklist:
-------------------
[Submitters: make sure that your review doesn't trigger any checkmarks!]
Your checkin has not passed review because (see checked entries):
___ Your RR template is generally incomplete; it has too many blank entries
that need proper data filled in.
___ You have failed to nominate the proper persons for review and push.
___ Your patches do not have proper short+long header
___ You have grammar/spelling in your header that is unacceptable.
___ You have exceeded a sensible line length in your headers/comments/text.
___ You have failed to put in a proper Trac Ticket # into your commits.
___ You have incorrectly put/left internal data in your comments/files
(i.e. internal bug tracking tool IDs, product names etc)
___ You have not given any evidence of testing beyond basic build tests.
Demonstrate some level of runtime or other sanity testing.
___ You have ^M present in some of your files. These have to be removed.
___ You have needlessly changed whitespace or added whitespace crimes
like trailing spaces, or spaces before tabs.
___ You have mixed real technical changes with whitespace and other
cosmetic code cleanup changes. These have to be separate commits.
___ You need to refactor your submission into logical chunks; there is
too much content into a single commit.
___ You have extraneous garbage in your review (merge commits etc)
___ You have giant attachments which should never have been sent;
Instead you should place your content in a public tree to be pulled.
___ You have too many commits attached to an e-mail; resend as threaded
commits, or place in a public tree for a pull.
___ You have resent this content multiple times without a clear indication
of what has changed between each re-send.
___ You have failed to adequately and individually address all of the
comments and change requests that were proposed in the initial review.
___ You have a misconfigured ~/.hgrc file (i.e. username, email etc)
___ Your computer have a badly configured date and time; confusing the
the threaded patch review.
___ Your changes affect IPC mechanism, and you don't present any results
for in-service upgradability test.
___ Your changes affect user manual and documentation, your patch series
do not contain the patch that updates the Doxygen manual.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What NetFlow Analyzer can do for you? Monitors network bandwidth and traffic
patterns at an interface-level. Reveals which users, apps, and protocols are
consuming the most bandwidth. Provides multi-vendor support for NetFlow,
J-Flow, sFlow and other flows. Make informed decisions using capacity
planning reports. https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/305295220;132659582;e
_______________________________________________
Opensaf-devel mailing list
Opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
