From 193f39a6ce80e51809b00715c3740a2f977ece09 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Bobi Jam Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 10:03:02 +0800 Subject: [PATCH] LU-6046 clio: update comments after cl_lock simplification Update comments to reflect current cl_lock situations. Signed-off-by: Bobi Jam Change-Id: Ic5f904cd2ea10005a6f4e13546d7a2e4b5ba8eb2 Reviewed-on: http://review.whamcloud.com/13137 Tested-by: Jenkins Reviewed-by: John L. Hammond Reviewed-by: Jinshan Xiong Tested-by: Maloo Reviewed-by: Oleg Drokin --- lustre/include/cl_object.h | 130 +++++++------------------------------------ lustre/lov/lov_cl_internal.h | 13 ----- 2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 124 deletions(-) diff --git a/lustre/include/cl_object.h b/lustre/include/cl_object.h index 85b267d..7a8da87 100644 --- a/lustre/include/cl_object.h +++ b/lustre/include/cl_object.h @@ -1111,111 +1111,29 @@ static inline bool __page_in_use(const struct cl_page *page, int refc) * * LIFE CYCLE * - * cl_lock is reference counted. When reference counter drops to 0, lock is - * placed in the cache, except when lock is in CLS_FREEING state. CLS_FREEING - * lock is destroyed when last reference is released. Referencing between - * top-lock and its sub-locks is described in the lov documentation module. - * - * STATE MACHINE - * - * Also, cl_lock is a state machine. This requires some clarification. One of - * the goals of client IO re-write was to make IO path non-blocking, or at - * least to make it easier to make it non-blocking in the future. Here - * `non-blocking' means that when a system call (read, write, truncate) - * reaches a situation where it has to wait for a communication with the - * server, it should --instead of waiting-- remember its current state and - * switch to some other work. E.g,. instead of waiting for a lock enqueue, - * client should proceed doing IO on the next stripe, etc. Obviously this is - * rather radical redesign, and it is not planned to be fully implemented at - * this time, instead we are putting some infrastructure in place, that would - * make it easier to do asynchronous non-blocking IO easier in the - * future. Specifically, where old locking code goes to sleep (waiting for - * enqueue, for example), new code returns cl_lock_transition::CLO_WAIT. When - * enqueue reply comes, its completion handler signals that lock state-machine - * is ready to transit to the next state. There is some generic code in - * cl_lock.c that sleeps, waiting for these signals. As a result, for users of - * this cl_lock.c code, it looks like locking is done in normal blocking - * fashion, and it the same time it is possible to switch to the non-blocking - * locking (simply by returning cl_lock_transition::CLO_WAIT from cl_lock.c - * functions). - * - * For a description of state machine states and transitions see enum - * cl_lock_state. - * - * There are two ways to restrict a set of states which lock might move to: - * - * - placing a "hold" on a lock guarantees that lock will not be moved - * into cl_lock_state::CLS_FREEING state until hold is released. Hold - * can be only acquired on a lock that is not in - * cl_lock_state::CLS_FREEING. All holds on a lock are counted in - * cl_lock::cll_holds. Hold protects lock from cancellation and - * destruction. Requests to cancel and destroy a lock on hold will be - * recorded, but only honored when last hold on a lock is released; - * - * - placing a "user" on a lock guarantees that lock will not leave - * cl_lock_state::CLS_NEW, cl_lock_state::CLS_QUEUING, - * cl_lock_state::CLS_ENQUEUED and cl_lock_state::CLS_HELD set of - * states, once it enters this set. That is, if a user is added onto a - * lock in a state not from this set, it doesn't immediately enforce - * lock to move to this set, but once lock enters this set it will - * remain there until all users are removed. Lock users are counted in - * cl_lock::cll_users. - * - * User is used to assure that lock is not canceled or destroyed while - * it is being enqueued, or actively used by some IO. - * - * Currently, a user always comes with a hold (cl_lock_invariant() - * checks that a number of holds is not less than a number of users). - * - * CONCURRENCY - * - * This is how lock state-machine operates. struct cl_lock contains a mutex - * cl_lock::cll_guard that protects struct fields. - * - * - mutex is taken, and cl_lock::cll_state is examined. - * - * - for every state there are possible target states where lock can move - * into. They are tried in order. Attempts to move into next state are - * done by _try() functions in cl_lock.c:cl_{enqueue,unlock,wait}_try(). - * - * - if the transition can be performed immediately, state is changed, - * and mutex is released. - * - * - if the transition requires blocking, _try() function returns - * cl_lock_transition::CLO_WAIT. Caller unlocks mutex and goes to - * sleep, waiting for possibility of lock state change. It is woken - * up when some event occurs, that makes lock state change possible - * (e.g., the reception of the reply from the server), and repeats - * the loop. - * - * Top-lock and sub-lock has separate mutexes and the latter has to be taken - * first to avoid dead-lock. - * - * To see an example of interaction of all these issues, take a look at the - * lov_cl.c:lov_lock_enqueue() function. It is called as a part of - * cl_enqueue_try(), and tries to advance top-lock to ENQUEUED state, by - * advancing state-machines of its sub-locks (lov_lock_enqueue_one()). Note - * also, that it uses trylock to grab sub-lock mutex to avoid dead-lock. It - * also has to handle CEF_ASYNC enqueue, when sub-locks enqueues have to be - * done in parallel, rather than one after another (this is used for glimpse - * locks, that cannot dead-lock). + * cl_lock is a cacheless data container for the requirements of locks to + * complete the IO. cl_lock is created before I/O starts and destroyed when the + * I/O is complete. + * + * cl_lock depends on LDLM lock to fulfill lock semantics. LDLM lock is attached + * to cl_lock at OSC layer. LDLM lock is still cacheable. * * INTERFACE AND USAGE * - * struct cl_lock_operations provide a number of call-backs that are invoked - * when events of interest occurs. Layers can intercept and handle glimpse, - * blocking, cancel ASTs and a reception of the reply from the server. + * Two major methods are supported for cl_lock: clo_enqueue and clo_cancel. A + * cl_lock is enqueued by cl_lock_request(), which will call clo_enqueue() + * methods for each layer to enqueue the lock. At the LOV layer, if a cl_lock + * consists of multiple sub cl_locks, each sub locks will be enqueued + * correspondingly. At OSC layer, the lock enqueue request will tend to reuse + * cached LDLM lock; otherwise a new LDLM lock will have to be requested from + * OST side. * - * One important difference with the old client locking model is that new - * client has a representation for the top-lock, whereas in the old code only - * sub-locks existed as real data structures and file-level locks are - * represented by "request sets" that are created and destroyed on each and - * every lock creation. + * cl_lock_cancel() must be called to release a cl_lock after use. clo_cancel() + * method will be called for each layer to release the resource held by this + * lock. At OSC layer, the reference count of LDLM lock, which is held at + * clo_enqueue time, is released. * - * Top-locks are cached, and can be found in the cache by the system calls. It - * is possible that top-lock is in cache, but some of its sub-locks were - * canceled and destroyed. In that case top-lock has to be enqueued again - * before it can be used. + * LDLM lock can only be canceled if there is no cl_lock using it. * * Overall process of the locking during IO operation is as following: * @@ -1228,7 +1146,7 @@ static inline bool __page_in_use(const struct cl_page *page, int refc) * * - when all locks are acquired, IO is performed; * - * - locks are released into cache. + * - locks are released after IO is complete. * * Striping introduces major additional complexity into locking. The * fundamental problem is that it is generally unsafe to actively use (hold) @@ -1250,16 +1168,6 @@ static inline bool __page_in_use(const struct cl_page *page, int refc) * buf is a part of memory mapped Lustre file, a lock or locks protecting buf * has to be held together with the usual lock on [offset, offset + count]. * - * As multi-stripe locks have to be allowed, it makes sense to cache them, so - * that, for example, a sequence of O_APPEND writes can proceed quickly - * without going down to the individual stripes to do lock matching. On the - * other hand, multi-stripe locks shouldn't be used by normal read/write - * calls. To achieve this, every layer can implement ->clo_fits_into() method, - * that is called by lock matching code (cl_lock_lookup()), and that can be - * used to selectively disable matching of certain locks for certain IOs. For - * exmaple, lov layer implements lov_lock_fits_into() that allow multi-stripe - * locks to be matched only for truncates and O_APPEND writes. - * * Interaction with DLM * * In the expected setup, cl_lock is ultimately backed up by a collection of diff --git a/lustre/lov/lov_cl_internal.h b/lustre/lov/lov_cl_internal.h index 9add90c..9ef0a46 100644 --- a/lustre/lov/lov_cl_internal.h +++ b/lustre/lov/lov_cl_internal.h @@ -72,19 +72,6 @@ * - top-page keeps a reference to its sub-page, and destroys it when it * is destroyed. * - * - sub-lock keep a reference to its top-locks. Top-lock keeps a - * reference (and a hold, see cl_lock_hold()) on its sub-locks when it - * actively using them (that is, in cl_lock_state::CLS_QUEUING, - * cl_lock_state::CLS_ENQUEUED, cl_lock_state::CLS_HELD states). When - * moving into cl_lock_state::CLS_CACHED state, top-lock releases a - * hold. From this moment top-lock has only a 'weak' reference to its - * sub-locks. This reference is protected by top-lock - * cl_lock::cll_guard, and will be automatically cleared by the sub-lock - * when the latter is destroyed. When a sub-lock is canceled, a - * reference to it is removed from the top-lock array, and top-lock is - * moved into CLS_NEW state. It is guaranteed that all sub-locks exist - * while their top-lock is in CLS_HELD or CLS_CACHED states. - * * - IO's are not reference counted. * * To implement a connection between top and sub entities, lov layer is split -- 1.8.3.1