Summary: mds: not waste 1.5s in waiting dead Adest to send RSP [#3102] Review request for Ticket(s): 3102 Peer Reviewer(s): Minh, Vu, Gary Pull request to: *** LIST THE PERSON WITH PUSH ACCESS HERE *** Affected branch(es): develop Development branch: ticket-3102 Base revision: ddb9d7065376df7757716013779755864d53ebe5 Personal repository: git://git.code.sf.net/u/thuantr/review
-------------------------------- Impacted area Impact y/n -------------------------------- Docs n Build system n RPM/packaging n Configuration files n Startup scripts n SAF services y OpenSAF services n Core libraries n Samples n Tests n Other n Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above): --------------------------------------------- N/A revision 0dcac75cb1641727eb49bf0916b99a945e4a2f84 Author: thuan.tran <thuan.t...@dektech.com.au> Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2019 09:39:00 +0700 mds: not waste 1.5s in waiting dead Adest to send RSP [#3102] - When sending response message to Adest which is not exist (crash/terminate), current MDS try to wait for 1.5 seconds before conclude no route to send RSP. - Here are scenarios may waste 1.5s waiting: SVCs DOWN (dead adest or vdest role change) -> get SNDRSP -> send RSP (wait 1.5s) get SNDRSP -> SVCs DOWN (dead adest or vdest role change) -> send RSP (wait 1.5s) This long wait time cause trouble for higher layer services, e.g: ntf, imm, etc... where there are many agents send initialize request (use message SNDRSP type) - Solution: create adest list, a timer start when last SVC of adest DOWN. When sending RSP to this adest, the wait time will reduce to only 10ms. Notice that following origin behavior is kept: No any SVC UP before -> get SNDRSP -> send RSP (wait 1.5s) Complete diffstat: ------------------ src/mds/mds_c_api.c | 180 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------- src/mds/mds_c_sndrcv.c | 38 ++++++---- src/mds/mds_core.h | 30 +++++++- src/mds/mds_dt2c.h | 2 +- src/mds/mds_dt_common.c | 22 +++++- src/mds/mds_main.c | 4 ++ 6 files changed, 221 insertions(+), 55 deletions(-) Testing Commands: ----------------- N/A Testing, Expected Results: -------------------------- N/A Conditions of Submission: ------------------------- ACK by reviewers Arch Built Started Linux distro ------------------------------------------- mips n n mips64 n n x86 n n x86_64 y y powerpc n n powerpc64 n n Reviewer Checklist: ------------------- [Submitters: make sure that your review doesn't trigger any checkmarks!] Your checkin has not passed review because (see checked entries): ___ Your RR template is generally incomplete; it has too many blank entries that need proper data filled in. ___ You have failed to nominate the proper persons for review and push. ___ Your patches do not have proper short+long header ___ You have grammar/spelling in your header that is unacceptable. ___ You have exceeded a sensible line length in your headers/comments/text. ___ You have failed to put in a proper Trac Ticket # into your commits. ___ You have incorrectly put/left internal data in your comments/files (i.e. internal bug tracking tool IDs, product names etc) ___ You have not given any evidence of testing beyond basic build tests. Demonstrate some level of runtime or other sanity testing. ___ You have ^M present in some of your files. These have to be removed. ___ You have needlessly changed whitespace or added whitespace crimes like trailing spaces, or spaces before tabs. ___ You have mixed real technical changes with whitespace and other cosmetic code cleanup changes. These have to be separate commits. ___ You need to refactor your submission into logical chunks; there is too much content into a single commit. ___ You have extraneous garbage in your review (merge commits etc) ___ You have giant attachments which should never have been sent; Instead you should place your content in a public tree to be pulled. ___ You have too many commits attached to an e-mail; resend as threaded commits, or place in a public tree for a pull. ___ You have resent this content multiple times without a clear indication of what has changed between each re-send. ___ You have failed to adequately and individually address all of the comments and change requests that were proposed in the initial review. ___ You have a misconfigured ~/.gitconfig file (i.e. user.name, user.email etc) ___ Your computer have a badly configured date and time; confusing the the threaded patch review. ___ Your changes affect IPC mechanism, and you don't present any results for in-service upgradability test. ___ Your changes affect user manual and documentation, your patch series do not contain the patch that updates the Doxygen manual. _______________________________________________ Opensaf-devel mailing list Opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel