[Lustre-devel] subtree locks and path re-validation avoidance

Alex Zhuravlev Alex.Zhuravlev at Sun.COM
Thu Feb 21 05:30:53 PST 2008


couple comments inline ...

Vladimir V. Saveliev wrote:
> The example shows the details:
> 1. A client C1 holds ordinary lock on an object O1 (it did
> chdir(/a/b/c/d/e), O1 is inode of /a/b/c/d/e). C1 is idle now.

chdir doesn't return any lock. should it?

> 2. Another client C2 does ls -ld /a/b/c/d/e, MD server sends a BAST to
> C1 and C1 cancels the lock of O1.
> 3. C2 is not interested anymore in O1, so it drops the lock. 
> 4. Yet another client C3 acquires subtree lock on /a/b and caches and
> possibly changes (if under WBC) objects under /a/b including /a/b/c/d/e
> (the object O1). The key issue is that MDS neither remembers about O1 on
> C1 nor keeps information about objects cached by a client under a
> subtree lock.
> 5. Now C1 continues with stat(``.''). It sees that the lock on O1 is
> canceled, so it goes to MD server and acquires the lock on O1.
> Now we have:
> uptodate O1 is on C3;
> MDS has a request for O1 from C1 and MDS can not easily deterimine
> whether O1 is under any subtree lock. In order to find whether the lock
> conflict exists we need to have a special procedure. It is referred to
> as path re-validation.
> The main thing to be done on path re-validation is to look for above
> subtree lock. While it is probably doable, the path re-validation is not
> going to be very efficient (especially in case of CMD). I can provide
> more details if necessary.
> However, it looks like it is possible to avoid having to do path
> re-validation completely.
> The problem appears when clients request locks on objects directly,
> without doing downward lookup through a directory structure.
> This happens, for example, when clients access directly components of
> current working directories (CWDs).
> If a client cancels locks on such objects (either due to a BAST or
> voluntary) - it has to go through the path re-validation later.
> Objects to which a client may access directly appear in result of normal
> downward lookup. Therefore, they were locked, and their locks can be
> canceled. That is the point where we can take care about future accesses
> without re-validation.
> On canceling a lock of directly accessible object we have to inform DLM
> that the ordinary locking has to be used for that object. That will
> prevent the object from getting cached under a subtree lock.

1) there may be thousands of such objects (many processes on many nodes)
2) it's not clear when to enable this back

> The problem with this schema is to determine which objects are directly
> accessible. But wouldn't solving it be worth doing given that it may
> help to avoid path re-validation deal.
> Any comments are welcome.

thanks, Alex

More information about the lustre-devel mailing list