[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <63ADC13FD55D6546B7DECE290D39E373CED68187@H3CMLB14-EX.srv.huawei-3com.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 00:48:34 +0000
From: Changwei Ge <ge.changwei@....com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Vitaly Mayatskih <v.mayatskih@...il.com>
CC: "mm-commits@...r.kernel.org" <mm-commits@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-next@...r.kernel.org" <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
"sfr@...b.auug.org.au" <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
"mhocko@...e.cz" <mhocko@...e.cz>,
"broonie@...nel.org" <broonie@...nel.org>,
"ocfs2-devel@....oracle.com" <ocfs2-devel@....oracle.com>,
piaojun <piaojun@...wei.com>, Joseph Qi <joseph.qi@...wei.com>,
Jiufei Xue <xuejiufei@...wei.com>,
Mark Fasheh <mfasheh@...e.de>,
Joel Becker <jlbec@...lplan.org>,
Junxiao Bi <junxiao.bi@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: mmotm 2016-08-02-15-53 uploaded
Hi Andrew and Vitaly,
I do agree that patch ee8f7fcbe638 ("ocfs2/dlm: continue to purge
recovery lockres when recovery master goes down", 2016-08-02) introduced
an issue. It makes DLM recovery can't pick up a new master for an
existed lock resource whose owner died seconds ago.
But this patch truly solves another issue.
So I think we can't just revert this patch but to give a fix to it.
Thanks,
Changwei
On 2017/10/11 3:38, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 14:06:41 -0400 Vitaly Mayatskih <v.mayatskih@...il.com> wrote:
>
>> * ocfs2-dlm-continue-to-purge-recovery-lockres-when-recovery
>> -master-goes-down.patch
>>
>> This one completely broke two node cluster use case: when one node dies,
>> the other one either eventually crashes (~4.14-rc4) or locks up (pre-4.14).
>
> Are you sure?
>
> Are you able to confirm that reverting this patch (ee8f7fcbe638b07e8)
> and only this patch fixes up current mainline kernels?
>
> Are you able to supply more info on the crashes and lockups so that the
> ocfs2 developers can understand the failures?
>
> Thanks.
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists