Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH] ocfs2: re-queue AST or BAST if sending is failed to improve the reliability

Hi, I think the mentioned duplicated AST issue doesn't even exist. Because the re-sended AST won't find any lock on converting list or blocked list. How AST callback can be called twice? Thanks, Changwei > > On 2017/8/23 12:48, Gang He wrote: >> >> >>> On 17/8/23 10:23, Junxiao Bi wrote:

Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH] ocfs2: re-queue AST or BAST if sending is failed to improve the reliability

On 2017/8/23 12:48, Gang He wrote: > > >> On 17/8/23 10:23, Junxiao Bi wrote: >>> On 08/10/2017 06:49 PM, Changwei Ge wrote: Hi Joseph, On 2017/8/10 17:53, Joseph Qi wrote: > Hi Changwei, > > On 17/8/9 23:24, ge changwei wrote: >> Hi >> >> >> On

Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH] ocfs2: re-queue AST or BAST if sending is failed to improve the reliability

>>> > > On 17/8/23 10:23, Junxiao Bi wrote: >> On 08/10/2017 06:49 PM, Changwei Ge wrote: >>> Hi Joseph, >>> >>> >>> On 2017/8/10 17:53, Joseph Qi wrote: Hi Changwei, On 17/8/9 23:24, ge changwei wrote: > Hi > > > On 2017/8/9 下午7:32, Joseph Qi wrote: >> Hi,

Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH] ocfs2: re-queue AST or BAST if sending is failed to improve the reliability

On 17/8/23 10:23, Junxiao Bi wrote: > On 08/10/2017 06:49 PM, Changwei Ge wrote: >> Hi Joseph, >> >> >> On 2017/8/10 17:53, Joseph Qi wrote: >>> Hi Changwei, >>> >>> On 17/8/9 23:24, ge changwei wrote: Hi On 2017/8/9 下午7:32, Joseph Qi wrote: > Hi, > > On 17/8/7

Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH] ocfs2: re-queue AST or BAST if sending is failed to improve the reliability

On 08/10/2017 06:49 PM, Changwei Ge wrote: > Hi Joseph, > > > On 2017/8/10 17:53, Joseph Qi wrote: >> Hi Changwei, >> >> On 17/8/9 23:24, ge changwei wrote: >>> Hi >>> >>> >>> On 2017/8/9 下午7:32, Joseph Qi wrote: Hi, On 17/8/7 15:13, Changwei Ge wrote: > Hi, > > In

Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH] ocfs2: re-queue AST or BAST if sending is failed to improve the reliability

Hi Mark, On 17/8/23 04:49, Mark Fasheh wrote: > On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 5:56 AM, Changwei Ge wrote: It will improve the reliability a lot. >>> Can you detail your testing? Code-wise this looks fine to me but as >>> you note, this is a pretty hard to hit corner case so

Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH] ocfs2: re-queue AST or BAST if sending is failed to improve the reliability

On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 5:56 AM, Changwei Ge wrote: >>> It will improve the reliability a lot. >> Can you detail your testing? Code-wise this looks fine to me but as >> you note, this is a pretty hard to hit corner case so it'd be nice to >> hear that you were able to exercise

Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH] ocfs2: re-queue AST or BAST if sending is failed to improve the reliability

Hi Joseph, On 2017/8/10 17:53, Joseph Qi wrote: > Hi Changwei, > > On 17/8/9 23:24, ge changwei wrote: >> Hi >> >> >> On 2017/8/9 下午7:32, Joseph Qi wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> On 17/8/7 15:13, Changwei Ge wrote: Hi, In current code, while flushing AST, we don't handle an exception that

Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH] ocfs2: re-queue AST or BAST if sending is failed to improve the reliability

Hi Changwei, On 17/8/9 23:24, ge changwei wrote: > Hi > > > On 2017/8/9 下午7:32, Joseph Qi wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 17/8/7 15:13, Changwei Ge wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> In current code, while flushing AST, we don't handle an exception that >>> sending AST or BAST is failed. >>> But it is indeed

Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH] ocfs2: re-queue AST or BAST if sending is failed to improve the reliability

Hi On 2017/8/9 下午7:32, Joseph Qi wrote: > Hi, > > On 17/8/7 15:13, Changwei Ge wrote: >> Hi, >> >> In current code, while flushing AST, we don't handle an exception that >> sending AST or BAST is failed. >> But it is indeed possible that AST or BAST is lost due to some kind of >> networks fault.

Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH] ocfs2: re-queue AST or BAST if sending is failed to improve the reliability

Hi, On 17/8/7 15:13, Changwei Ge wrote: > Hi, > > In current code, while flushing AST, we don't handle an exception that > sending AST or BAST is failed. > But it is indeed possible that AST or BAST is lost due to some kind of > networks fault. > Could you please describe this issue more

Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH] ocfs2: re-queue AST or BAST if sending is failed to improve the reliability

On 2017/8/8 4:20, Mark Fasheh wrote: > On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 2:13 AM, Changwei Ge wrote: >> Hi, >> >> In current code, while flushing AST, we don't handle an exception that >> sending AST or BAST is failed. >> But it is indeed possible that AST or BAST is lost due to some

Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH] ocfs2: re-queue AST or BAST if sending is failed to improve the reliability

On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 2:13 AM, Changwei Ge wrote: > Hi, > > In current code, while flushing AST, we don't handle an exception that > sending AST or BAST is failed. > But it is indeed possible that AST or BAST is lost due to some kind of > networks fault. > > If above

Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH] ocfs2: re-queue AST or BAST if sending is failed to improve the reliability

Hi Gang, At present time, when AST or BAST sending is failed, it already prints ERROR logs. I admit that it's truly a corner case but a fatal error when networks is not reliable. Because if AST is not sent back to locking node, related procedure will be pending, even the whole cluster will

Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH] ocfs2: re-queue AST or BAST if sending is failed to improve the reliability

Base on your description, this case should be a corner case, NOT a fatal error. Should we use mlog(ML_NOTICE, ...) to print these logs? Thanks Gang >>> > Hi, > > In current code, while flushing AST, we don't handle an exception that > sending AST or BAST is failed. > But it is indeed possible

[Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH] ocfs2: re-queue AST or BAST if sending is failed to improve the reliability

Hi, In current code, while flushing AST, we don't handle an exception that sending AST or BAST is failed. But it is indeed possible that AST or BAST is lost due to some kind of networks fault. If above exception happens, the requesting node will never obtain an AST back, hence, it will never