iv/linux
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

gfs2: Expect -EBUSY after canceling dlm locking requests

Browse Source 
Due to the asynchronous nature of the dlm api, when we request a pending
locking request to be canceled with dlm_unlock(DLM_LKF_CANCEL), the
locking request will either complete before it could be canceled, or the
cancellation will succeed.  In either case, gdlm_ast will be called once
and the status will indicate the outcome of the locking request, with
-DLM_ECANCEL indicating a canceled request.

Inside dlm, when a locking request completes before its cancel request
could be processed, gdlm_ast will be called, but the lock will still be
considered busy until a DLM_MSG_CANCEL_REPLY message completes the
cancel request.  During that time, successive dlm_lock() or dlm_unlock()
requests for that lock will return -EBUSY.  In other words, waiting for
the gdlm_ast call before issuing the next locking request is not enough.
There is no way of waiting for a cancel request to actually complete,
either.

We rarely cancel locking requests, but when we do, we don't know when
the next locking request for that lock will occur.  This means that any
dlm_lock() or dlm_unlock() call can potentially return -EBUSY.  When
that happens, this patch simply repeats the request after a short pause.

This workaround could be improved upon by tracking for which dlm locks
cancel requests have been issued, but that isn't strictly necessary and
it would complicate the code.  We haven't seen -EBUSY errors from dlm
without cancel requests.

Signed-off-by: Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@redhat.com>
This commit is contained in:
Andreas Gruenbacher 2022-02-02 11:00:48 +01:00
parent 7336905a89
commit a892b12393
1 changed files with 14 additions and 1 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

15
fs/gfs2/lock_dlm.c
View File

@ -261,6 +261,7 @@ static int gdlm_lock(struct gfs2_glock *gl, unsigned int req_state,
int req;
u32 lkf;
char strname[GDLM_STRNAME_BYTES] = "";
int error;
req = make_mode(gl->gl_name.ln_sbd, req_state);
lkf = make_flags(gl, flags, req);
@ -279,8 +280,14 @@ static int gdlm_lock(struct gfs2_glock *gl, unsigned int req_state,
* Submit the actual lock request.
*/
return dlm_lock(ls->ls_dlm, req, &gl->gl_lksb, lkf, strname,
again:
error = dlm_lock(ls->ls_dlm, req, &gl->gl_lksb, lkf, strname,
GDLM_STRNAME_BYTES - 1, 0, gdlm_ast, gl, gdlm_bast);
if (error == -EBUSY) {
msleep(20);
goto again;
}
return error;
}
static void gdlm_put_lock(struct gfs2_glock *gl)
@ -312,8 +319,14 @@ static void gdlm_put_lock(struct gfs2_glock *gl)
return;
}
again:
error = dlm_unlock(ls->ls_dlm, gl->gl_lksb.sb_lkid, DLM_LKF_VALBLK,
NULL, gl);
if (error == -EBUSY) {
msleep(20);
goto again;
}
if (error) {
fs_err(sdp, "gdlm_unlock %x,%llx err=%d\n",
gl->gl_name.ln_type,