From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757660AbWKXJcY (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Nov 2006 04:32:24 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757663AbWKXJcX (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Nov 2006 04:32:23 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:50900 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757651AbWKXJbx (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Nov 2006 04:31:53 -0500 Subject: [DLM] do full recover_locks barrier [6/9] From: Steven Whitehouse To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cluster-devel@redhat.com Cc: David Teigland Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Red Hat (UK) Ltd Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 09:34:28 +0000 Message-Id: <1164360868.3392.143.camel@quoit.chygwyn.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.2 (2.2.2-5) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >>From 7aa1c6ae53b16b07c3f31296929750f3187378b3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: David Teigland Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 09:31:48 -0600 Subject: [PATCH] [DLM] do full recover_locks barrier Red Hat BZ 211914 The previous patch "[DLM] fix aborted recovery during node removal" was incomplete as discovered with further testing. It set the bit for the RS_LOCKS barrier but did not then wait for the barrier. This is often ok, but sometimes it will cause yet another recovery hang. If it's a new node that also has the lowest nodeid that skips the barrier wait, then it misses the important step of collecting and reporting the barrier status from the other nodes (which is the job of the low nodeid in the barrier wait routine). Signed-off-by: David Teigland Signed-off-by: Steven Whitehouse --- fs/dlm/recoverd.c | 8 +++++++- 1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/dlm/recoverd.c b/fs/dlm/recoverd.c index 6e4ee94..8bb895f 100644 --- a/fs/dlm/recoverd.c +++ b/fs/dlm/recoverd.c @@ -168,9 +168,15 @@ static int ls_recover(struct dlm_ls *ls, /* * Other lockspace members may be going through the "neg" steps * while also adding us to the lockspace, in which case they'll - * be looking for this status bit during dlm_recover_locks(). + * be doing the recover_locks (RS_LOCKS) barrier. */ dlm_set_recover_status(ls, DLM_RS_LOCKS); + + error = dlm_recover_locks_wait(ls); + if (error) { + log_error(ls, "recover_locks_wait failed %d", error); + goto fail; + } } dlm_release_root_list(ls); -- 1.4.1