Re: [Qemu-block] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH for-2.7 v2 07/17] rbd: Implement image locking

[Fam Zheng]

On Tue, 04/26 10:42, Jason Dillaman wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 7:42 PM, Fam Zheng <address@hidden> wrote:
> > On Fri, 04/22 21:57, Jason Dillaman wrote:
> >> Since this cannot automatically recover from a crashed QEMU client with an
> >> RBD image, perhaps this RBD locking should not default to enabled.
> >> Additionally, this will conflict with the "exclusive-lock" feature
> >> available since the Ceph Hammer-release since both utilize the same locking
> >> construct.
> >>
> >> As a quick background, the optional exclusive-lock feature can be
> >> enabled/disabled on image and safely/automatically handles the case of
> >> recovery from a crashed client.  Under normal conditions, the RBD
> >> exclusive-lock feature automatically acquires the lock upon the first
> >> attempt to write to the image and transparently transitions ownership of
> >> the lock between two or more clients -- used for QEMU live-migration.
> >
> > Is it enabled by default?
> >
> 
> Starting with the Jewel release of Ceph it is enabled by default.

OK, then I'll leave rbd in this QEMU series for now.

> 
> >>
> >> I'd be happy to add a new librbd API method to explicitly expose acquiring
> >> and releasing the RBD exclusive lock since it certainly solves a couple
> >> compromises in our current QEMU integration.
> >
> > Does the API do enable/disable or acquire/relase? Could you explain the
> > differences between it and rbd_lock_exclusive?
> 
> There is already an API for enabling/disabling the exclusive-lock
> feature (and associated CLI tooling).  This would be a new API method
> to explicitly acquire / release the exclusive-lock (instead of
> implicitly acquiring the lock upon first write request as it currently
> does in order to support QEMU live-migration).
> 
> The rbd_lock_exclusive/rbd_lock_shared are essentially advisory locks.
> Nothing stops a client from accessing the image if it doesn't attempt
> to acquire the lock (even if another client already has the image
> locked exclusively).  It also doesn't support automatic recovery from
> failed clients.

I see, thanks for the explanation!

Fam