[Cluster-devel] [PATCH] gfs2: skip dlm_unlock calls in unmount

Steven Whitehouse <[email protected]>
Newsgroups com.redhat.cluster-devel
Message-ID <1352454317.2720.1.camel@menhir>
Hi,

On Thu, 2012-11-08 at 16:34 -0500, David Teigland wrote:
> When unmounting, gfs2 does a full dlm_unlock operation on every
> cached lock.  This can create a very large amount of work and can
> take a long time to complete.  However, the vast majority of these
> dlm unlock operations are unnecessary because after all the unlocks
> are done, gfs2 leaves the dlm lockspace, which automatically clears
> the locks of the leaving node, without unlocking each one individually.
> So, gfs2 can skip explicit dlm unlocks, and use dlm_release_lockspace to
> remove the locks implicitly.  The one exception is when the lock's lvb is
> being used.  In this case, dlm_unlock is called because it may update the
> lvb of the resource.
> 
> Signed-off-by: David Teigland <[email protected]>
> ---
>  fs/gfs2/glock.c    |    1 +
>  fs/gfs2/incore.h   |    1 +
>  fs/gfs2/lock_dlm.c |    8 ++++++++
>  3 files changed, 10 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/gfs2/glock.c b/fs/gfs2/glock.c
> index e6c2fd5..f3a5edb 100644
> --- a/fs/gfs2/glock.c
> +++ b/fs/gfs2/glock.c
> @@ -1528,6 +1528,7 @@ static void dump_glock_func(struct gfs2_glock *gl)
>  
>  void gfs2_gl_hash_clear(struct gfs2_sbd *sdp)
>  {
> +	set_bit(SDF_SKIP_DLM_UNLOCK, &sdp->sd_flags);
>  	glock_hash_walk(clear_glock, sdp);
>  	flush_workqueue(glock_workqueue);
>  	wait_event(sdp->sd_glock_wait, atomic_read(&sdp->sd_glock_disposal) == 0);
> diff --git a/fs/gfs2/incore.h b/fs/gfs2/incore.h
> index 3d469d3..67a39cf 100644
> --- a/fs/gfs2/incore.h
> +++ b/fs/gfs2/incore.h
> @@ -539,6 +539,7 @@ enum {
>  	SDF_DEMOTE		= 5,
>  	SDF_NOJOURNALID		= 6,
>  	SDF_RORECOVERY		= 7, /* read only recovery */
> +	SDF_SKIP_DLM_UNLOCK	= 8,
>  };
>  
>  #define GFS2_FSNAME_LEN		256
> diff --git a/fs/gfs2/lock_dlm.c b/fs/gfs2/lock_dlm.c
> index 0fb6539..806a639 100644
> --- a/fs/gfs2/lock_dlm.c
> +++ b/fs/gfs2/lock_dlm.c
> @@ -289,6 +289,14 @@ static void gdlm_put_lock(struct gfs2_glock *gl)
>  	gfs2_glstats_inc(gl, GFS2_LKS_DCOUNT);
>  	gfs2_sbstats_inc(gl, GFS2_LKS_DCOUNT);
>  	gfs2_update_request_times(gl);
> +
> +	/* don't want to skip dlm_unlock writing the lvb when lock is ex */
> +	if (test_bit(SDF_SKIP_DLM_UNLOCK, &sdp->sd_flags) &&
> +	    (!gl->gl_lvb[0] || gl->gl_state != LM_ST_EXCLUSIVE)) {
I'm still not happy with using !gl->gl_lvb[0] to determine whether the
LVB is in use or not. I think we need a better test, or alternatively
just test the lock state, since most locks will be NL anyway before they
get to this point in time,

Steve.

> +		gfs2_glock_free(gl);
> +		return;
> +	}
> +
>  	error = dlm_unlock(ls->ls_dlm, gl->gl_lksb.sb_lkid, DLM_LKF_VALBLK,
>  			   NULL, gl);
>  	if (error) {
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.