On Tue, 27 Jan 2015, Wang, Zhiqiang wrote: > Not sure if it is correct, but below is my understanding. Correct me if > I'm wrong. > > Yes, in the current code, a hash lookup on each IO is used to check dup > op. But when adding extra_reqids as a log entry in the pg_log, 2 hash > lookups may be not sufficient. The extra_reqids is organized by object > id as in your code. We may have other ops on an object just promoted. If > a dup op comes in after these ops, then we have to search for log > entries of this object in pg_log.
Not sure I follow... we have a second hash_map for that? https://github.com/liewegas/ceph/commit/fd66f515953e1af5af107cae2cc9bb01d1fab011#diff-d0421fbca7045e2a15a4ff980f3eb00cR60 Perhaps that should be a unordered_multimap in case a reqid shows up in two entries (e.g., object is modified, promoted, then flushed). But either way it will be a single lookup to determine if it's a dup...? sage > > -----Original Message----- > From: ceph-devel-ow...@vger.kernel.org > [mailto:ceph-devel-ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Sage Weil > Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 1:21 AM > To: Wang, Zhiqiang > Cc: ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org; Gregory Farnum > Subject: RE: idempotent op (esp delete) > > On Mon, 26 Jan 2015, Wang, Zhiqiang wrote: > > The downside of this approach is that we may need to search the pg_log > > for a specific object in every write io? > > Not quite. IndexedLog maintains a hash_map of all of the request ids in the > log, so it's just a hash lookup on each IO. (Well, now 2 hash lookups, > because I put the additional request IDs in a second auxilliary map to handle > dups properly. I think we can avoid that lookup if we use the request flags > carefully, though.. the RETRY and REDIRECTED flags I think? Need to check > carefully.) > > > Maybe we can combine this > > approach and the changes in PR 3447. For the flush case when the > > object is deleted in the base, we search the pg_log for dup op. This > > should be rare cases. Otherwise the object exists, we check the reqid > > list in the object_info_t for dup op. > > We could do a hybrid approach, but there is some cost to the per-object > tracking: a tiny bit more memory, and an O(n) search of the items in that > list (~10 or 20?) for the dup check. I suspect the hash lookup is cheaper? > And simpler. > > sage > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ceph-devel-ow...@vger.kernel.org > > [mailto:ceph-devel-ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Wang, Zhiqiang > > Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 10:35 AM > > To: Sage Weil; Gregory Farnum > > Cc: ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org > > Subject: RE: idempotent op (esp delete) > > > > This method puts the reqid list in the pg_log instead of the object_info_t, > > so that it's preserved even in the delete case, which sounds more > > reasonable. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ceph-devel-ow...@vger.kernel.org > > [mailto:ceph-devel-ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Sage Weil > > Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2015 6:19 AM > > To: Gregory Farnum > > Cc: ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org > > Subject: Re: idempotent op (esp delete) > > > > On Fri, 23 Jan 2015, Gregory Farnum wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 1:43 PM, Sage Weil <sw...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > Background: > > > > > > > > 1) Way back when we made a task that would thrash the cache modes > > > > by adding and removing the cache tier while ceph_test_rados was running. > > > > This mostly worked, but would occasionally fail because we would > > > > > > > > - delete an object from the cache tier > > > > - a network failure injection would lose the reply > > > > - we'd disable the cache > > > > - the delete would resend to the base tier, not get recognized as > > > > a dup (different pool, different pg log) > > > > -> -ENOENT instead of 0 > > > > > > > > 2) The proxy write code hits a similar problem: > > > > > > > > - delete gets proxied > > > > - we initiate async promote > > > > - a network failure injection loses the delete reply > > > > - delete resends and blocks on promote (or arrives after it > > > > finishes) > > > > - promote finishes > > > > - delete is handled > > > > -> -ENOENT instead of 0 > > > > > > > > The ticket is http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/8935 > > > > > > > > The problem is partially addressed by > > > > > > > > https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/3447 > > > > > > > > by logging a few request ids on every object_info_t and preserving > > > > that on promote and flush. > > > > > > > > However, it doesn't solve the problem for delete because we throw > > > > out object_info_t so that reqid_t is lost. > > > > > > > > I think we have two options, not necessarily mutually exclusive: > > > > > > > > 1) When promoting an object that doesn't exist (to create a > > > > whiteout), pull reqids out of the base tier's pg log so that the > > > > whiteout is primed with request ids. > > > > > > > > 1.5) When flushing... well, that is harder because we have nowhere > > > > to put the reqids. Unless we make a way to cram a list of reqid's > > > > into a single PG log entry...? In that case, we wouldn't strictly > > > > need the per-object list since we could pile the base tier's > > > > reqids into the promote log entry in the cache tier. > > > > > > > > 2) Make delete idempotent (0 instead of ENOENT if the object > > > > doesn't exist). This will require a delicate compat transition > > > > (let's ignore that a moment) but you can preserve the old behavior > > > > for callers that care by preceding the delete with an assert_exists op. > > > > Most callers don't care, but a handful do. This simplifies the > > > > semantics we need to support going forward. > > > > > > > > Of course, it's all a bit delicate. The idempotent op semantics > > > > have a time horizon so it's all a bit wishy-washy... :/ > > > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > Do we have other cases that we're worried about which would be > > > improved by maintaining reqids across pool cache transitions? I'm > > > not a big fan of maintaining those per-op lists (they sound really > > > expensive?), but if we need them for something else that's a point > > > in their favor. > > > > I don't think they're *too* expensive (say, vector of 20 per > > object_info_t?). But the only thing I can think of beyond the cache > > tiering stuff would be cases where the pg log isnt long enough for a very > > laggy client. In general ops will be distributed across ops so it will be > > catch the dup from another angle. > > > > However.. I just hacked up a patch that lets us cram lots of reqids into a > > single pg_log_entry_t and I think that may be a simpler solution. We can > > cram all reqids (for the last N of them) for promote and flush into the > > single log entry and the delete is no longer special.. it'd work equally > > well for other dups and for class methods that do who knows what. The > > patch is here: > > > > https://github.com/liewegas/ceph/commit/wip-pg-reqids > > > > What do you think? > > > > > We could make delete idempotent instead and that's what I initially > > > favor, but it also seems a bit scary (it's not like our operations > > > can be made idempotent; lots of them invoke classes that will differ > > > or > > > whatever!) and I can't think of which callers might care so I'm > > > having trouble formulating the bounds of this solution. > > > > Yeah, it seems like an easier endpoint but a dangerous path to get there... > > > > sage > > -- > > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" > > in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo > > info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > > -- > > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" > > in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo > > info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > > > > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the > body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at > http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in > the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html