AINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
> index caae31fb9741..946fcf6c8d77 100644
> --- a/MAINTAINERS
> +++ b/MAINTAINERS
> @@ -6093,7 +6093,7 @@ F: include/video/udlfb.h
> DISTRIBUTED LOCK MANAGER (DLM)
> M: Christine Caulfield
> M: David Teigland
> -L: cluster-devel@redhat.co
Hi Linus,
Please pull dlm updates from tag:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/teigland/linux-dlm.git dlm-6.5
The dlm posix lock handling (for gfs2) has three notable changes:
- Local pids returned from GETLK are no longer negated. A previous
patch negating remote pids mistakenly
Hi Linus,
Please pull dlm updates from tag:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/teigland/linux-dlm.git dlm-6.4
Change summary:
Remove some unused features (related to lock timeouts) that have been
previously scheduled for removal.
Fix a bug where the pending callback flag would be in
Hi Linus,
Please pull dlm updates from tag:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/teigland/linux-dlm.git dlm-6.3
This patch set fixes some races in the lowcomms startup and shutdown code
that were found by targetted stress testing that quickly and repeatedly
joins and leaves lockspaces.
Hi Linus,
Please pull dlm updates from tag:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/teigland/linux-dlm.git dlm-6.2
These patches include the usual cleanups and minor fixes, removal of code
that is no longer needed due to recent improvements, and improvements to
processing large volumes of
On Mon, Oct 10, 2022 at 03:35:24PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 10, 2022 at 04:00:39PM -0500, David Teigland wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 08, 2022 at 09:03:28PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > > On Sun, Oct 09, 2022 at 03:05:17PM +1300, Paulo Miguel Almeida wrote:
> > > &
On Sat, Oct 08, 2022 at 09:03:28PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 09, 2022 at 03:05:17PM +1300, Paulo Miguel Almeida wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 08, 2022 at 05:18:35PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > > This is allocating 1 more byte than before, since the struct size didn't
> > > change. But this ha
Hi Linus,
Please pull dlm updates from tag:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/teigland/linux-dlm.git dlm-6.1
This set of commits includes:
. Fix a couple races found with a new torture test.
. Improve errors when api functions are used incorrectly.
. Improve tracing for lock requests
On Mon, Aug 01, 2022 at 09:17:30AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> But again: please don't rebase stuff you have already exposed to
> others. It causes real issues. This was just one example of it.
>
> And if you *do* have to rebase for a real technical reason ("Oh, that
> was a disaster, it absolu
On Mon, Aug 01, 2022 at 10:50:28AM -0500, David Teigland wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 01, 2022 at 08:46:24AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 1, 2022 at 7:43 AM David Teigland wrote:
> > >
> > > (You can ignore the premature 5.20 pull request from some weeks ago.)
On Mon, Aug 01, 2022 at 08:46:24AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 1, 2022 at 7:43 AM David Teigland wrote:
> >
> > (You can ignore the premature 5.20 pull request from some weeks ago.)
>
> Gaah. That was the first thing I pulled this morning because it was
>
Hi Linus,
Please pull dlm updates from tag:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/teigland/linux-dlm.git dlm-6.0
Changes in this set of commits:
. Delay the cleanup of interrupted posix lock requests until the
user space result arrives. Previously, the immediate cleanup
would lead t
On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 01:36:44AM +0100, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 5:16 PM Alexander Aring wrote:
> > > > - spin_lock(&ops_lock);
> > > > - if (!list_empty(&op->list)) {
> > > > - log_error(ls, "dlm_posix_lock: op on list %llx",
> > > > -
On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 05:32:49PM +0800, heming.z...@suse.com wrote:
> If there is no chance to add dynamic updating setting by run command.
> Is it a good idea to add a parameter "-I", like "dlm_tool -I reload_config".
> "-I" means directly change without reading from dlm.conf.
> When users want
On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 02:38:45PM +0800, heming.z...@suse.com wrote:
> But I am ok with the reload_config idea, it's more basic.
> We could give dlm_controld a chance to change behavior on the fly.
> If needed, I could file a new patch for feature "reload_config", can I do it?
Yes, I'd welcome a
On Sun, Sep 19, 2021 at 02:43:12PM +0800, Heming Zhao wrote:
> This new feature gives dlm ability to change config settings dynamically.
Hi Heming,
Letting dlm_controld reload certain settings from dlm.conf makes sense,
but I'd like something more basic. Let the user edit dlm.conf, then
run dlm_
On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 04:54:57PM +0800, Jia-Ju Bai wrote:
> Hello,
>
> My static analysis tool reports a possible ABBA deadlock in the dlm
> filesystem in Linux 5.10:
>
> dlm_recover_waiters_pre()
> mutex_lock(&ls->ls_waiters_mutex); --> line 5130
> recover_convert_waiter()
> _receive_c
On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 09:41:18AM -0500, David Teigland wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 02:49:04PM +0800, Gang He wrote:
> > Hi David,
> >
> > On 2021/8/13 1:45, David Teigland wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 01:44:53PM +0800, Gang He wrote:
> > >
On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 02:49:04PM +0800, Gang He wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> On 2021/8/13 1:45, David Teigland wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 01:44:53PM +0800, Gang He wrote:
> > > In fact, I can reproduce this problem stably.
> > > I want to know if this error ha
On Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 01:44:53PM +0800, Gang He wrote:
> In fact, I can reproduce this problem stably.
> I want to know if this error happen is by our expectation? since there is
> not any extreme pressure test.
> Second, how should we handle these error cases? call dlm_lock function
> again? may
On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 04:37:04PM +0800, Yang Yingliang wrote:
> Add the missing unlock before return from accept_from_sock()
> in the error handling case.
Thanks, applied to the next branch.
Dave
> Fixes: 6cde210a9758 ("fs: dlm: add helper for init connection")
> Reported-by: Hulk Robot
> Sign
On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 02:09:40PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Add a helper to directly set the SCTP_NODELAY sockopt from kernel space
> without going through a fake uaccess.
Ack, they look fine to me, thanks.
Dave
On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 12:40:40PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 03:00:58PM -0300, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote:
> > On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 08:26:42AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > And call it directly from dlm instead of going through kernel_setsockopt.
> >
>
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 05:25:36PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> When calling debugfs functions, there is no need to ever check the
> return value. The function can work or not, but the code logic should
> never do something different based on this.
Thanks, pushed to next branch in linux-dlm
I tried these with one address and had no problem, so I've pushed
them to the linux-dlm next branch.
Dave
On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 09:58:47AM -0500, Bob Peterson wrote:
> Dave Teigland recommended. Unless I'm mistaken, Dave has said that GFS2
> should never withdraw; it should always just kernel panic (Dave, correct
> me if I'm wrong). At least this patch confines that behavior to a small
> subset of wi
On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 09:49:17AM +0300, Vasily Averin wrote:
> Dear David,
> I've noticed that release_lockspace() lacks idr_destroy(&ls->ls_recover_idr),
> though it is called on rollback in new_lockspace().
>
> It seems for me it is not critical, and should not lead to any leaks,
> however cou
On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 02:18:19PM -0600, Tycho Andersen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> here's a series to fix some bugs I noticed in the DLM. The third patch
> in the series and maybe the first should probably go to stable, assuming
> everyone agrees they're indeed bugs.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Tycho
>
> Tycho Ande
On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 04:07:18PM +0800, Guoqing Jiang wrote:
> But by default, seems dlm_controld just run with "-s 0". And I tried to add
> "daemon_debug=1" to /etc/dlm/dlm.conf,
> then dlm resource can't start at all. Could you tell me how to enable this
> option? Thanks in advance!
That optio
On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 10:27:56PM -0600, Gang He wrote:
> Hello David,
>
> Do you agree to add this prompt to the user?
> Since sometimes customers attempted to setup SCTP protocol with two rings,
> but they could not get the expected result, then it maybe bring some concerns
> to the customer
> I use active rrp_mode in corosync.conf and reboot the cluster to let the
> configuration effective.
> But, the about 5 mins hang in new_lockspace() function is still here.
The last time I tested connection failures with sctp was several years
ago, but I recall seeing similar problems. I had ho
On Sat, Oct 07, 2017 at 03:26:11AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 07, 2017 at 09:59:41AM +0800, Jia-Ju Bai wrote:
> > According to fs/dlm/lock.c, the kernel may sleep under a spinlock,
> > and the function call path is:
> > dlm_master_lookup (acquire the spinlock)
> > dlm_send_rcom_lookup_du
On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 03:47:50PM +0800, Guoqing Jiang wrote:
> Call schedule() here could make the thread miss wake
> up from kthread_stop(), so it is better to recheck
> kthread_should_stop() before call schedule(), a symptom
> happened when I run indefinite test (which mostly created
> clustere
The patches are now here for testing
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/teigland/linux-dlm.git/log/?h=next
Dave
On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 10:51:06AM +0100, Steven Whitehouse wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> On 12/09/17 09:54, tsutomu@toshiba.co.jp wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > This series of patches (2nd version after previous review on August) is to
> > fix various bugs. This patch set is against the mainline kernel.
> >
On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 09:01:31AM +, tsutomu@toshiba.co.jp wrote:
> When the DLM_LKF_NODLCKWT flag was set, even if conversion deadlock
> was detected, the caller of can_be_granted() was unknown.
> We change the behavior of can_be_granted() and change it to detect
> conversion deadlock reg
On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 11:40:13PM +, tsutomu@toshiba.co.jp wrote:
> If you refer to other implementations in kernel, the following
> modifications may be better.
> The important thing is to call kthread_should_stop() after
> set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE). How is this fix?
Thanks,
On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 11:41:44AM -0500, David Teigland wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 05:51:37AM +, tsutomu@toshiba.co.jp wrote:
> > If there is a lock resource conflict on multiple nodes, the lock on
> > convert queue may not be granted forever.
> >
>
On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 05:51:37AM +, tsutomu@toshiba.co.jp wrote:
> If there is a lock resource conflict on multiple nodes, the lock on
> convert queue may not be granted forever.
>
> EX.)
> grant queue:
> node0 grmode NL / rqmode IV
> node1 grmode NL / rqmode IV
>
> convert queu
On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 05:50:31AM +, tsutomu@toshiba.co.jp wrote:
> If a node sends a DLM_RCOM_STATUS command and an error occurs on the
> receiving side, the DLM_RCOM_STATUS_REPLY response may not be returned.
> We retransmitted the DLM_RCOM_STATUS command so that we do not wait for
> an
On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 05:51:01AM +, tsutomu@toshiba.co.jp wrote:
> When dlm_recoverd_stop() is called between kthread_should_stop() and
> set_task_state(), dlm_recoverd will not wake up.
This works, but have you looked elsewhere in the kernel for kthread
examples we could copy that do a
On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 02:31:20PM +0800, Guoqing Jiang wrote:
> To resolve the issue, we need to use sock_create_lite
> instead of sock_create_kern, like commit 0933a578cd55
> ("rds: tcp: use sock_create_lite() to create the accept
> socket") did.
Thanks, this is now in linux-dlm next.
Dave
On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 04:02:20PM -0400, Bob Peterson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Before this patch, multiple GFS2 mounts would result in multiple
> connection attempts. They were all ignored, and rightly so, but
> they were being counted against the connection attempt retries.
> This patch moves the retry
On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 03:45:34PM +0800, Vlad Tsyrklevich wrote:
> Hello, I wanted to ping the list and see if this could get a review:
now pushed to linux-dlm.git
> > Clear the 'unused' field and the uninitialized padding in 'lksb' to
> > avoid leaking memory to userland in copy_result_to_user(
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 05:07:22PM +0800, Eric Ren wrote:
> @@ -852,12 +868,19 @@ void dlm_recover_rsbs(struct dlm_ls *ls)
> if (is_master(r)) {
> if (rsb_flag(r, RSB_RECOVER_CONVERT))
> recover_conversion(r);
> +
> +
On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 04:42:09PM +0800, Eric Ren wrote:
> On 11/16/2016 04:29 PM, Eric Ren wrote:
> > Hi David and all,
> >
> > I am debugging an issue of ocfs2 that relates to LVB value. I will try
> > to make it a pure DLM question:
> >
> > Two nodes (N1, N2) try to truncate the same file(R1)
On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 11:34:54AM -0400, Bob Peterson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This patch removes the WQ_UNBOUND flag (which implies WQ_HIGHPRI)
> from the DLM's ast work queue, in favor of just WQ_HIGHPRI.
> This has been shown to cause a 19 percent performance increase for
> simultaneous inode creates
On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 07:15:09AM -0400, Guoqing Jiang wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In case we have set DLM_LKF_CONVERT flag for dlm_lock, is it
> possible that the convert
> queue could be NULL or not NULL while perform unlock? I think there
> are two different
> cases would appear when call dlm_unlock:
>
On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 02:53:00PM +0800, Eric Ren wrote:
> Q1: what's stateful merged node?
> Q2: what if we add the stateful merged nodes to dlm_controld daemon
> cpg instead of fencing them?
The details here are fundamental to the way dlm works because the dlm
depends on the properties of Virt
On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 04:07:18PM +0800, Eric Ren wrote:
> When there are 3 or more partitions that merge, none may see enough
> clean nodes. Therefore, DLM would be stuck there forever unitl administrator
> manually reset/restart enough nodes to produce sufficient clean nodes.
> However, sometime
On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 03:44:27PM +0800, Eric Ren wrote:
> Thanks! Hum, according to the long comments, you've handled the 2/2
> even split by way of the low nodeid killing statefull merged
> numbers.
Interesting, I'd forgotten about that bit of code, so I was wrong to say
that we do nothing afte
On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 02:36:25AM -0600, Gang He wrote:
> Here is a inconsistent LVB_LEN size problem when create a new lockspace
> from user-space tool (e.g. fsck.ocfs2) and kernel module (e.g.
> ocfs2/stack_user.c).
> From the userspace tool, the LVB size is DLM_USER_LVB_LEN (32 bytes,
> define
On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 01:45:47PM +0800, Eric Ren wrote:
> >the cluster. Neither option is good. In the past we decided to let the
> >cluster sit in this state so an admin could choose which nodes to remove.
> >Do you prefer the alternative of kicking nodes in this case (with somewhat
> >unpredi
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 05:16:08PM +0800, Eric Ren wrote:
> DLM would be stuck in "need fencing" state, although cluster can
> regain quorum very quickly after a network transient disconnection.
>
> It's possible that this process happens within one monoclock. It
> means "cluster_quorate_monotime"
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 04:16:17PM -0500, Bob Peterson wrote:
> I think the "right thing to do" at this point is this:
>
> 1. Patch #1 is already upstream
> 2. Patch #2 stands on its own, so I think this should go forward.
> 3. Combine patches 3, 4 and 5, which ought to provide a comprehensive fix
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 01:39:09PM -0500, Bob Peterson wrote:
> The problem is: While testing the dlm in multiple recovery situations,
> Nate and I discovered multiple problems. Until recently, no one has tried
> to run recovery tests on an upstream DLM,
(Let's distinguish tcp connection testing/r
ms introduced here:
From b3a5bbfd780d9e9291f5f257be06e9ad6db11657 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Bob Peterson
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 09:34:47 -0500
Subject: [PATCH] dlm: print error from kernel_sendpage
Print a dlm-specific error when a socket error occurs
when sending a dlm message.
Signed-off-by: Bob Peterson
Si
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 09:38:58PM +0100, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 9:18 PM, David Teigland wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 08:48:12PM +0100, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
> >> When a shutdown is requested, shouldn't dlm_controld really relea
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 08:48:12PM +0100, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
> When a shutdown is requested, shouldn't dlm_controld really release
> lockspaces in a similar way as well?
You could probably do that if you check that the lockspace is managing no
local locks (which would be a pain). If locks
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 02:33:49AM +0100, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
> never actively releases existing lockspaces. This means that as soon
> as any application creates the default lockspace (via libdlm), or if
> an application doesn't release any lockspaces it creates, dlm_controld
> will never sh
On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 09:51:53AM -0500, Bob Peterson wrote:
> it's from the fenced process, and if so, queue the final put. That should
> mitigate the problem.
Bob, I'm perplexed by the focus on fencing; this issue is broader than
fencing as I mentioned in bz 1255872. Over the years that I've r
On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 04:30:53AM -0600, Zhen Ren wrote:
> It expects alarm timeout to send SIGALRM, and wake up the sleep process,
> as "man fcntl" says: "If a signal is caught while waiting, then
> the call is interrupted and (after the signal handler has returned)
> returns immediately (wi
On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 06:49:54AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig
> ---
> fs/dlm/config.c | 288
> +++-
> 1 file changed, 74 insertions(+), 214 deletions(-)
Looks good to me.
Dave
On Mon, Aug 03, 2015 at 07:20:55PM +0800, tan...@zte.com.cn wrote:
> When using SCTP protocol in dlm and it received connecting request
> from unknown address, the function receive_from_sock may directly
> shutdown the connection through process_sctp_notification. If still
> messages received fr
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 05:47:28PM +0800, Guoqing Jiang wrote:
> Do you consider take the following clean up? If yes, I will send a
> formal patch, otherwise pls ignore it.
On first glance, the old and new code do not appear to do the same thing,
so let's leave it as it is.
> - to_nodeid =
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 11:10:44AM +0800, Guoqing Jiang wrote:
> The remove_from_waiters could only be invoked after failed to
> create_message, right?
> Since send_message always returns 0, this patch doesn't touch anything
> about the failure
> path, and it also doesn't change the original seman
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 03:50:58AM +, Pralay Dakua wrote:
> 645 static int receive_from_sock(struct connection *con)
> 646 {
>
>
> 704
> 705 /* Process SCTP notifications */
> 706 if (msg.msg_flags & MSG_NOTIFICATION) {
> 707 msg.msg_control = incmsg;
>
On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 08:08:52AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 17:56:07 -0400
> Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> > From: Joe Perches
> >
> > [ REQUEST FOR ACKS ]
>
> Can any of the DLM maintainers give me an Acked-by for this?
Looks ok,
Dave
On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 01:21:41PM -0400, Bob Peterson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This patch adds a new lock flag, DLM_LKF_NOLOOKUP, which instructs DLM
> to refrain from sending lookup requests in cases where the lock library
> node is not the current node. This is similar to the DLM_LKF_NOQUEUE
> flag, ex
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 02:11:39PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Jul 2014 11:23:43 -0700
> Joe Perches wrote:
>
> > op->info.rv is an s32, but it's only used as a u8.
> >
>
> I don't understand this patch. info.rv is s32 (and I assume that "rv"
> stands for "return value"). What I don'
On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 01:16:32PM -0400, Bob Peterson wrote:
> - Original Message -
> > On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 10:43:13AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > > On Tue, 01 Jul 2014 06:20:10 -0700
> > > Joe Perches wrote:
> > >
> > > > While doing a bit of adding argument names to fs.h,
> > > >
On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 10:43:13AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Jul 2014 06:20:10 -0700
> Joe Perches wrote:
>
> > While doing a bit of adding argument names to fs.h,
> > I looked at lm_grant and it seems the 2nd argument
> > is always NULL.
> >
> > How about removing it?
> >
> > This
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 03:21:48PM +0800, Lidong Zhong wrote:
> When the length of name_in is NAME_ID_SIZE, the last byte of the name
> and a whitespace will get lost.
Thanks, I modified your patch to handle longer names also...
commit 4283123f0b13eafc46d825050c5142cf44be79c3
Author: Lidong Zhong
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 04:52:14PM +0530, Pratik Mehta wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 11:43 PM, David Teigland
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > That's a fine solution. You might also be able to use
> > 'service cman start quorum'.
>
> Apart from DLM,
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 07:03:44PM +0530, Pratik Mehta wrote:
> Hi,
> I am trying to use a cluster with Pacemaker + CMAN on CentOS 6.4. The
> application that runs on the cluster includes a userspace SCTP stack.
> However CMAN loads dlm which loads the Linux kernel sctp module, which
> interferes w
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 02:20:25PM +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> When dlm_release_lockspace(ls, 1) is invoked on a busy system
I've pushed this to the next branch.
Thanks, Dave
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 12:02:29PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> This is a static checker fix. We have several places here that check
> the upper limit without checking for negative numbers. One example of
> this is in find_rsb().
>
> My static checker marks endian data as user controled so. Th
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 02:27:57PM +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> For lockspaces with an LVB length above 64 bytes, avoid truncating
> the LVB while exchanging it with another node in the cluster.
Thanks, I've added this to next.
Dave
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 04:56:08AM -0500, micha...@cs.wisc.edu wrote:
> The following patches made over Linus's tree fix a handful of bugs
> that occur when the initial IP addr cannot be reached when using
> SCTP.
Thanks Mike, I've pushed these to the linux-dlm next branch.
Dave
List the simplest sequence of steps to manually
set up and run gfs2/dlm.
Signed-off-by: David Teigland
---
gfs2/man/gfs2.5 | 188
1 file changed, 188 insertions(+)
diff --git a/gfs2/man/gfs2.5 b/gfs2/man/gfs2.5
index 25effdd..220a10d
List the simplest sequence of steps to manually
set up and run gfs2/dlm.
Signed-off-by: David Teigland
---
gfs2/man/gfs2.5 | 188
1 file changed, 188 insertions(+)
diff --git a/gfs2/man/gfs2.5 b/gfs2/man/gfs2.5
index 25effdd..eb12934
On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 09:47:45AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> [Just forwarding to David ...]
>
> On Wed, 08 May 2013 11:04:45 -0700 Randy Dunlap wrote:
> >
> > on x86_64:
> >
> > when CONFIG_GFS2_FS_LOCKING_DLM=y and CONFIG_DLM=m:
> >
> > fs/built-in.o: In function `gfs2_lock':
> > file.c
On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 09:19:21PM +0900, Masatake YAMATO wrote:
> The buffer used in "Expecting reply" of dlm_tool lockdebug output is
> used as C string (via printf %s) but not terminated with nul char.
Yes, thanks. This was fixed for some time in dlm.git. I'm afraid we'll
need to go through t
On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 11:34:45AM +0100, Steven Whitehouse wrote:
> Please consider pulling the following changes,
There's some mixup here that should be cleared up first.
> David Teigland (2):
> GFS2: Fix unlock of fcntl locks during withdrawn state
>
>
The temp lvb bitmap was on the stack, which could
be an alignment problem for __set_bit_le. Use
kmalloc for it instead.
Signed-off-by: David Teigland
---
fs/gfs2/incore.h | 1 +
fs/gfs2/lock_dlm.c | 31 ++-
2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
diff
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 11:55:14AM +0100, Jacek Konieczny wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have recently upgraded my development cluster from 3.6.x to 3.7.1
> kernel and clvmd stopped working (all locking operation result in 'Invalid
> argument'). I have traced the problem to this call:
>
> write(8,
> "\6\0\0
; > id += slot_distance.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo
> > Reported-by: David Teigland
> > Cc: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
>
> David, can you please test whether the patch makes the skipped
> deletion bug go away?
Yes, I've tested, and it works fine now.
Thanks,
Dave
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 04:18:41PM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote:
> It looks a bit weird to me that ls->ls_recover_list_count is also
> incremented by recover_list_add(). The two code paths don't seem to
> be interlocke at least upon my very shallow glance. Is it that only
> either the list or idr is in
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 10:13:17AM -0500, David Teigland wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 10:57:23AM -0500, David Teigland wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 05:31:08PM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > > idr_destroy() can destroy idr by itself and idr_remove_all() is bein
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 10:57:23AM -0500, David Teigland wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 05:31:08PM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > idr_destroy() can destroy idr by itself and idr_remove_all() is being
> > deprecated.
> >
> > The conversion isn't completely tr
e use of
> idr_remove_all() w/o idr_destroy(). Replace it with idr_remove() call
> inside idr_for_each_entry() loop. It goes on top so that it matches
> the operation order in recover_idr_del().
>
> Only compile tested.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo
> Cc: Christine Cau
emove_all().
>
> Only compile tested.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo
> Cc: Christine Caulfield
> Cc: David Teigland
> Cc: cluster-devel@redhat.com
> ---
> This patch depends on an earlier idr patch and I think it would be
> best to route these together through -mm. Christine, David, can you
> please ack this?
Ack
The recent commit fb6791d100d1bba20b5cdbc4912e1f7086ec60f8
included the wrong logic. The lvbptr check was incorrectly
added after the patch was tested.
Signed-off-by: David Teigland
---
fs/gfs2/lock_dlm.c | 7 ++-
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/fs/gfs2
Save the effort of allocating, reading and writing
the lvb for most glocks that do not use it.
Signed-off-by: David Teigland
---
fs/gfs2/glock.c| 27 +--
fs/gfs2/glops.c|3 ++-
fs/gfs2/incore.h |3 ++-
fs/gfs2/lock_dlm.c | 12 +++-
4 files
The lksb struct already contains a pointer to the lvb,
so another directly from the glock struct is not needed.
Signed-off-by: David Teigland
---
fs/gfs2/glock.c| 10 --
fs/gfs2/incore.h |1 -
fs/gfs2/lock_dlm.c |8
fs/gfs2/quota.c|6 +++---
fs/gfs2
ck is called because it may update the
lvb of the resource.
Signed-off-by: David Teigland
---
fs/gfs2/glock.c|1 +
fs/gfs2/incore.h |1 +
fs/gfs2/lock_dlm.c |8
3 files changed, 10 insertions(+)
diff --git a/fs/gfs2/glock.c b/fs/gfs2/glock.c
index e6c2fd5..f3a5edb 100644
---
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 10:44:36AM +, Steven Whitehouse wrote:
> > - save 64 bytes of memory for every local lock
> > (32 in gfs2_glock, 32 in dlm_rsb)
> >
> > - save 96 bytes of memory for every remote lock
> > (32 in gfs2_glock, 32 in local dlm_rsb, 32 in remote dlm_lkb)
> >
> > - save
On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 09:45:17AM +, Steven Whitehouse wrote:
> > + if (test_bit(SDF_SKIP_DLM_UNLOCK, &sdp->sd_flags) &&
> > + (!gl->gl_lvb[0] || gl->gl_state != LM_ST_EXCLUSIVE)) {
> I'm still not happy with using !gl->gl_lvb[0] to determine whether the
> LVB is in use or not. I think
ck is called because it may update the
lvb of the resource.
Signed-off-by: David Teigland
---
fs/gfs2/glock.c|1 +
fs/gfs2/incore.h |1 +
fs/gfs2/lock_dlm.c |8
3 files changed, 10 insertions(+)
diff --git a/fs/gfs2/glock.c b/fs/gfs2/glock.c
index e6c2fd5..f3a5edb 100644
---
On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 06:48:19PM +, Steven Whitehouse wrote:
> > Converting to NL would actually be less expensive than unlock because the
> > NL convert does not involve a reply message, but unlock does.
> >
> I'm not entirely sure I follow... at least from the filesystem point of
> view (a
1 - 100 of 465 matches
Mail list logo
