On Dec 11, 2013, at 8:39 AM, Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 01:23:36AM +0900, > Maru Newby <ma...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> >> On Dec 10, 2013, at 6:36 PM, Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamah...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Dec 09, 2013 at 08:43:59AM +1300, >>> Robert Collins <robe...@robertcollins.net> wrote: >>> >>>>>> listening: when an agent connects after an outage, it first starts >>>>>> listening, then does a poll for updates it missed. >>>>> >>>>> Are you suggesting that processing of notifications and full state >>>>> synchronization are able to cooperate safely? Or hoping that it will be >>>>> so in the future? >>>> >>>> I'm saying that you can avoid race conditions by a combination of >>>> 'subscribe to changes' + 'give me the full state'. >>> >>> Like this? >>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/61057/ >>> This patch is just to confirm the idea. >> >> I'm afraid the proposed patch is no more reliable than the current approach >> of using file-based locking. I am working on an alternate patch that puts >> the rpc event loop in the dhcp agent so that better coordination between >> full synchronization and notification handling is possible. This approach >> has already been taken with the L3 agent and work on the L2 agent is in >> process. > > You objected against agent polling in the discussion. > But you're now proposing polling now. Did you change your mind? Uh, no. I'm proposing better coordination between notification processing and full state synchronization beyond simple exclusionary primitives (utils.synchronize etc). I apologize if my language was unclear. m. _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
