A reply to a recovery message will often be received after the relevant
recovery sequence has aborted and the next recovery sequence has begun.
We need to ignore replies to these old messages from the previous
recovery. There's already a way to do this for synchronous recovery
requests using the rc_id number, but not for async.
Each recovery sequence already has a locally unique sequence number
associated with it. This patch adds a field to the rcom (recovery
message) structure where this recovery sequence number can be placed,
rc_seq. When a node sends a reply to a recovery request, it copies the
rc_seq number it received into rc_seq_reply. When the first node receives
the reply to its recovery message, it will check whether rc_seq_reply
matches the current recovery sequence number, ls_recover_seq, and if not
then it ignores the old reply.
An old, inadequate approach to filtering out old replies (checking if the
current stage of recovery has moved back to the start) has been removed
from two spots.
The protocol version number is changed to reflect the different rcom
structures.
Signed-off-by: David Teigland <teigland@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@redhat.com>
This fixes the following gcc warnings generated on
the architectures where uint64_t != unsigned long long (e.g. ppc64).
fs/dlm/rcom.c:154: warning: format '%llx' expects type 'long long unsigned int', but argument 4 has type 'uint64_t'
fs/dlm/rcom.c:154: warning: format '%llx' expects type 'long long unsigned int', but argument 5 has type 'uint64_t'
fs/dlm/recoverd.c:48: warning: format '%llx' expects type 'long long unsigned int', but argument 3 has type 'uint64_t'
fs/dlm/recoverd.c:202: warning: format '%llx' expects type 'long long unsigned int', but argument 3 has type 'uint64_t'
fs/dlm/recoverd.c:210: warning: format '%llx' expects type 'long long unsigned int', but argument 3 has type 'uint64_t'
Signed-off-by: Ryusuke Konishi <ryusuke@osrg.net>
Signed-off-by: Patrick Caulfield <pcaulfie@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@redhat.com>
We often abort a recovery after sending a status request to a remote node.
We want to ignore any potential status reply we get from the remote node.
If we get one of these unwanted replies, we've often moved on to the next
recovery message and incremented the message sequence counter, so the
reply will be ignored due to the seq number. In some cases, we've not
moved on to the next message so the seq number of the reply we want to
ignore is still correct, causing the reply to be accepted. The next
recovery message will then mistake this old reply as a new one.
To fix this, we add the flag RCOM_WAIT to indicate when we can accept a
new reply. We clear this flag if we abort recovery while waiting for a
reply. Before the flag is set again (to allow new replies) we know that
any old replies will be rejected due to their sequence number. We also
initialize the recovery-message sequence number to a random value when a
lockspace is first created. This makes it clear when messages are being
rejected from an old instance of a lockspace that has since been
recreated.
Signed-off-by: David Teigland <teigland@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@redhat.com>
When the not_ready routine sends a "fake" status reply with blank status
flags, it needs to use the correct size for a normal STATUS_REPLY by
including the size of the would-be config parameters. We also fill in the
non-existant config parameters with an invalid lvblen value so it's easier
to notice if these invalid paratmers are ever being used.
Signed-off-by: David Teigland <teigland@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@redhat.com>
Red Hat BZ 213682
If two nodes leave the lockspace (while unmounting the fs in the case of
gfs) after one has sent a STATUS message to the other, STATUS/STATUS_REPLY
messages will then ping-pong between the nodes when neither of them can
find the lockspace in question any longer. We kill this by not sending
another STATUS message when we get a STATUS_REPLY for an unknown
lockspace.
Signed-off-by: David Teigland <teigland@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@redhat.com>
When a status reply is sent for a lockspace that doesn't yet exist, the
message sequence number from the sender was not being copied into the
reply causing the sender to ignore the reply.
Signed-off-by: David Teigland <teigland@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@redhat.com>
When recoveries are aborted by other recoveries we can get replies to
status or names requests that we've given up on. This can cause problems
if we're making another request and receive an old reply. Add a sequence
number to status/names requests and reject replies that don't match. A
field already exists for the seq number that's used in other message
types.
Signed-off-by: David Teigland <teigland@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@redhat.com>
To aid debugging, it's useful to be able to see what nodeid the dlm is
waiting on for a message reply.
Signed-off-by: David Teigland <teigland@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@redhat.com>
This patch removes support for range locking from the DLM
Signed-off-by: David Teigland <teigland@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@redhat.com>
This is the core of the distributed lock manager which is required
to use GFS2 as a cluster filesystem. It is also used by CLVM and
can be used as a standalone lock manager independantly of either
of these two projects.
It implements VAX-style locking modes.
Signed-off-by: David Teigland <teigland@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Steve Whitehouse <swhiteho@redhat.com>
