On Oct 8, 2007, at 3:56 PM, Sam Lang wrote:
On Oct 8, 2007, at 1:34 PM, Pete Wyckoff wrote:
Tell me which of these things are true/false, and perhaps add more
so we Scott and I can understand.
1. Address types
- core PVFS refers to peers using a 64-bit opaque BMI_addr_t
True.
- BMI has a list that maps BMI_addr_to to a method (e.g. mx or tcp)
and a struct method_addr *
True. I've been referring to this part of the code as the bmi
control layer (there's references to that name in the code). It
includes the 'address reference list', which holds the ref_st_p
instances.
- BMI methods do not see BMI_addr_t. They see struct method_addr *.
That struct has a void * that is filled with method-specific
items, like a connection structure.
True, although my patch changes that, because the address reference
list is accessed based on the PVFS_BMI_addr_t. The
bmi_method_addr_reg_callback function returns a PVFS_BMI_addr_t,
which the method is meant to store, and when it comes time to call
bmi_method_addr_forget_callback, it passes that PVFS_BMI_addr_t it
stored.
2. Address creation
- apps ask for peers by name: tcp://myhost:1223/pvfs
- these names are parsed by the appropriate method to return
an existing or new struct method_addr *. Methods are expected
to keep a list of known peers? IB does.
I think they all do, but I'm not sure that they have to. The
reference list stores the method_addr* as well, so the particular
method could just throw everything in there before calling
bmi_method_addr_reg_callback. If the method wants to iterate
through its known addresses though, it needs to manage them itself
as well.
- servers can also receive new connections, in which case they
must build a struct method_addr, and register it with core
BMI, through bmi_method_addr_reg_callback()
True.
3. Address destruction
- currently never happens. In theory, core BMI can request
that a method drop an address, perhaps when out of resources.
Within the particular method (tcp being the one I'm looking at),
the address is destroyed (tcp_forget_addr is called). But the
address reference is never being removed from the reference list.
In the case of tcp, this is a big problem (the bug in question),
because tcp calls bmi_method_addr_reg_callback for each new
connection, not just each new peer that connects.
Why not have tcp simply not register on each connection, but on each
new client. The handle_new_connection() function is only used on the
server.
The patch implements a complementary callback function:
bmi_method_addr_forget_callback, to be called by the individual
methods when the connection is closed or the address is removed
from the method's own management structures. In the case of tcp, a
connection is closed when poll or epoll returns an IN event on a
socket (through testcontext) and the following read returns zero
(EOF). Its at this point the method now (with my patch) calls
bmi_method_addr_forget_callback to remove the address reference
from the list.
I think it is stretching a bit for the server's BMI method to make an
assumption about the fate of a client due to a loss of communication.
The loss could be permanent or a re-connect attempt may already be
initiated.
Is the determination about when to give up on a client (e.g. after
some time period, via some userspace utility, etc.) better handled at
the PVFS2 layer and then use BMI_get_info(DROP_ADDR) to handle it?
- BMI_addr_t and struct method_addr and method-internal state are
kept synchronized how? Through which calls? Who frees which
things when?
On the server, PVFS_BMI_addr_t gets added to the reference list by
bmi_method_addr_reg_callback. It gets removed from the list (with
my patch) by bmi_method_addr_forget_callback, before the method
frees up the address structures it was managing internally.
I'm obviously wrong and confused about #3. And maybe 2b makes
a bad assumption.
What you've described sounds right.
Then how does your new forget callback fit in with all this?
Somehow I thought the endless list growth was purely a TCP problem,
not something that needed core plumbing.
I think its only a tcp problem because the tcp method calls
bmi_method_addr_reg_callback for each new connection. It looks
like the other methods only call it for each new peer? The list
just doesn't get larger over time, so unless we plan to allow for
millions of clients, its not an issue for other methods. And in
that case, they don't have to worry about calling the
forget_callback. I was assuming that they should in the interest
of completeness.
-sam
_______________________________________________
Pvfs2-developers mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.beowulf-underground.org/mailman/listinfo/pvfs2-developers
