- Original Message -
> Can we just use NOQUEUE? It tells you that there's a lock conflict, which
> tells you to move along and try another if you don't want to contend. If
> you cache acquired locks and reuse them, then it doesn't matter if the
> master node is remote or local.
The probl
- Original Message -
> Hi,
>
> I think we need to do some more investigation here... how long do the
> lookups take? If the issue is just to create a list of perferred rgrps
> for each node, then there are various ways in which we might do that.
> That is not to say that this isn't a good
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
Hi,
On 01/10/14 18:21, 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, except it fails locks that wou
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, except it fails locks that would require a lookup, with -EAGAIN.
This is no
