summaryrefslogtreecommitdiffstats
path: root/fs/dlm/rcom.c
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorDavid Teigland <teigland@redhat.com>2006-12-13 10:37:16 -0600
committerSteven Whitehouse <swhiteho@redhat.com>2007-02-05 13:35:50 -0500
commit38aa8b0c59c35d10d15ebf00ceee641f9ed7acba (patch)
tree17444ed0f0e195677a6faaac31ba296f37b5e148 /fs/dlm/rcom.c
parentdc200a8848cca8b0e99012996c66f4b379a390ed (diff)
downloadlinux-38aa8b0c59c35d10d15ebf00ceee641f9ed7acba.tar.bz2
[DLM] fix old rcom messages
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>
Diffstat (limited to 'fs/dlm/rcom.c')
-rw-r--r--fs/dlm/rcom.c61
1 files changed, 38 insertions, 23 deletions
diff --git a/fs/dlm/rcom.c b/fs/dlm/rcom.c
index 4cc31be9cd9d..521ad9bb47b7 100644
--- a/fs/dlm/rcom.c
+++ b/fs/dlm/rcom.c
@@ -56,6 +56,10 @@ static int create_rcom(struct dlm_ls *ls, int to_nodeid, int type, int len,
rc->rc_type = type;
+ spin_lock(&ls->ls_recover_lock);
+ rc->rc_seq = ls->ls_recover_seq;
+ spin_unlock(&ls->ls_recover_lock);
+
*mh_ret = mh;
*rc_ret = rc;
return 0;
@@ -159,6 +163,7 @@ static void receive_rcom_status(struct dlm_ls *ls, struct dlm_rcom *rc_in)
if (error)
return;
rc->rc_id = rc_in->rc_id;
+ rc->rc_seq_reply = rc_in->rc_seq;
rc->rc_result = dlm_recover_status(ls);
make_config(ls, (struct rcom_config *) rc->rc_buf);
@@ -224,21 +229,7 @@ static void receive_rcom_names(struct dlm_ls *ls, struct dlm_rcom *rc_in)
{
struct dlm_rcom *rc;
struct dlm_mhandle *mh;
- int error, inlen, outlen;
- int nodeid = rc_in->rc_header.h_nodeid;
- uint32_t status = dlm_recover_status(ls);
-
- /*
- * We can't run dlm_dir_rebuild_send (which uses ls_nodes) while
- * dlm_recoverd is running ls_nodes_reconfig (which changes ls_nodes).
- * It could only happen in rare cases where we get a late NAMES
- * message from a previous instance of recovery.
- */
-
- if (!(status & DLM_RS_NODES)) {
- log_debug(ls, "ignoring RCOM_NAMES from %u", nodeid);
- return;
- }
+ int error, inlen, outlen, nodeid;
nodeid = rc_in->rc_header.h_nodeid;
inlen = rc_in->rc_header.h_length - sizeof(struct dlm_rcom);
@@ -248,6 +239,7 @@ static void receive_rcom_names(struct dlm_ls *ls, struct dlm_rcom *rc_in)
if (error)
return;
rc->rc_id = rc_in->rc_id;
+ rc->rc_seq_reply = rc_in->rc_seq;
dlm_copy_master_names(ls, rc_in->rc_buf, inlen, rc->rc_buf, outlen,
nodeid);
@@ -294,6 +286,7 @@ static void receive_rcom_lookup(struct dlm_ls *ls, struct dlm_rcom *rc_in)
ret_nodeid = error;
rc->rc_result = ret_nodeid;
rc->rc_id = rc_in->rc_id;
+ rc->rc_seq_reply = rc_in->rc_seq;
send_rcom(ls, mh, rc);
}
@@ -375,20 +368,13 @@ static void receive_rcom_lock(struct dlm_ls *ls, struct dlm_rcom *rc_in)
memcpy(rc->rc_buf, rc_in->rc_buf, sizeof(struct rcom_lock));
rc->rc_id = rc_in->rc_id;
+ rc->rc_seq_reply = rc_in->rc_seq;
send_rcom(ls, mh, rc);
}
static void receive_rcom_lock_reply(struct dlm_ls *ls, struct dlm_rcom *rc_in)
{
- uint32_t status = dlm_recover_status(ls);
-
- if (!(status & DLM_RS_DIR)) {
- log_debug(ls, "ignoring RCOM_LOCK_REPLY from %u",
- rc_in->rc_header.h_nodeid);
- return;
- }
-
dlm_recover_process_copy(ls, rc_in);
}
@@ -415,6 +401,7 @@ static int send_ls_not_ready(int nodeid, struct dlm_rcom *rc_in)
rc->rc_type = DLM_RCOM_STATUS_REPLY;
rc->rc_id = rc_in->rc_id;
+ rc->rc_seq_reply = rc_in->rc_seq;
rc->rc_result = -ESRCH;
rf = (struct rcom_config *) rc->rc_buf;
@@ -426,6 +413,31 @@ static int send_ls_not_ready(int nodeid, struct dlm_rcom *rc_in)
return 0;
}
+static int is_old_reply(struct dlm_ls *ls, struct dlm_rcom *rc)
+{
+ uint64_t seq;
+ int rv = 0;
+
+ switch (rc->rc_type) {
+ case DLM_RCOM_STATUS_REPLY:
+ case DLM_RCOM_NAMES_REPLY:
+ case DLM_RCOM_LOOKUP_REPLY:
+ case DLM_RCOM_LOCK_REPLY:
+ spin_lock(&ls->ls_recover_lock);
+ seq = ls->ls_recover_seq;
+ spin_unlock(&ls->ls_recover_lock);
+ if (rc->rc_seq_reply != seq) {
+ log_error(ls, "ignoring old reply %x from %d "
+ "seq_reply %llx expect %llx",
+ rc->rc_type, rc->rc_header.h_nodeid,
+ (unsigned long long)rc->rc_seq_reply,
+ (unsigned long long)seq);
+ rv = 1;
+ }
+ }
+ return rv;
+}
+
/* Called by dlm_recvd; corresponds to dlm_receive_message() but special
recovery-only comms are sent through here. */
@@ -454,6 +466,9 @@ void dlm_receive_rcom(struct dlm_header *hd, int nodeid)
goto out;
}
+ if (is_old_reply(ls, rc))
+ goto out;
+
if (nodeid != rc->rc_header.h_nodeid) {
log_error(ls, "bad rcom nodeid %d from %d",
rc->rc_header.h_nodeid, nodeid);