Re: [Gluster-devel] Integrating liburcu source into the glusterfs source tree
I'm currently testing my changes with liburcu-0.7.* . It is missing just one API which I'm using from 0.8. I've written a local implementation of just that one function, and am currently in process of testing this. If this test is successful, then our problems will be minimized. This only leaves out Debian Wheezy and Ubuntu Precise with liburcu-0.6.* . I tried testing this out, but as liburcu-0.6 doesn't apparently provide pkg-config configurations, I stopped as soon as I started. ~kaushal On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 2:37 PM, Niels de Vos nde...@redhat.com wrote: On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 09:10:36AM +0530, Kaushal M wrote: Thanks for this information Kaleb. I'll check the changes I've done till now with the older versions of the libraries. I think I'm going to need at least the 0.8.* release of liburcu, as some new apis were introduced in it, which I'm using. I'll post the outcome of my tests back here. For a start, I collected the various versions of liburcu (userspace-rcu in some) available in the different distros. This list is based on the distros for which we provide community built packages and test on. - Fedora 21 - 0.8.1 (0.8.5 in testing but stuck due to some breakages) - Fedora 20 - 0.7.7 (0.8.5 in testing but stuck due to some breakages) - EL7 - 0.7.9 - EL6 - 0.7.7 - Debian Wheezy - 0.6.7 - Debian Jessie - 0.8.5 (in testing) - Ubuntu Precise - 0.6.7 - Ubuntu Trusty - 0.7.12 - Ubuntu Utopic - 0.8.4 - Netbsd - 0.8.6 - Freebsd - 0.7.7 The list doesn't look too good. I do not like including libraries in the glusterfs sources. Currently there are several bits under contrib/ that do not see any maintenance. Who will be maintaining (fixing potential bugs, backporting newer versions, ...) for linurcu? Note that we support *many* different distributions, architectures and master+3 releases. It would be *so* much more efficient to use the distributions version of liburcu. Maybe it is possible to write some wrapper functions for the older versions of the library, and place those wrappers in contrib/ instead? Alternatively, we could maintain packages for liburcu in our repositories on download.gluster.org for distributions that do not have a recent enough version. You will need to find a relyable packager that agrees to take on this task. Niels ~kaushal On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 6:30 PM, Kaleb KEITHLEY kkeit...@redhat.com wrote: Hi, Just FYI, what you propose is called bundling in Fedora packaging parlance, and Fedora's packaging guidelines forbid bundling. It is possible to get an exception granted, but it's not safe to presume that an exception will be granted. (For downstream this is a non-issue, but here on gluster-devel we're not concerned with downstream.) You either need to convince the maintainers of liburcu to update to the newer versions everywhere, or you need to implement using the oldest version on the platforms you intend to support. And if this is too onerous, e.g. to use what's in (RH)EL5, then it's another argument in favor of dropping support for (RH)EL5. (The other argument is that python on RHEL5 is too old for geo-rep.) In short, those of use who package gluster in Fedora would be, however reluctantly, required to vote against doing this. I recommend contacting the liburcu maintainers in Fedora/EPEL and see if you can't convince them to update to the newest version. Regards, -- Kaleb /30/2015 12:09 PM, Deepak Shetty wrote: On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 5:05 PM, Kaushal M kshlms...@gmail.com mailto:kshlms...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, I had started a thread previously on the efforts we are undertaking to improve thread synchronization in GlusterD [1]. I had mentioned that we will be using RCU for synchronization and the userspace RCU library (liburcu) [2] for implementation. I am now in a almost in a position to submit changes to Gerrit for review. But, I have an obstacle of making liburcu available on the jenkins slaves. I have begun development using the 0.8.6 version of liburcu, which is the latest stable release. EPEL has liburcu packages for CentOS 6 and 7, but they are the of the older 0.7.* versions. Fedora has packages more recent packages, but they are still older, 0.8.1. [3]. Considering the above situation with binary packages, I'm considering adding liburcu into the GlusterFS tree as a part of /contrib. This will be similar in vein to the argp-standalone library. liburcu is licensed under LGPL-v2.1, so I don't think there is going to be any problem including it. But IANAL, so I would like to know of if this would if this is okay from a legal perspective. I'll add the liburcu source to our tree and push the change for review. I'm not
Re: [Gluster-devel] Integrating liburcu source into the glusterfs source tree
The local implementation is working well for liburcu-0.7. I'll be continuing with this approach as it is going to cover most of the systems we target. We can decide how we'll handle Debian Wheezy and Ubuntu Precise later. ~kaushal On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 3:00 PM, Kaushal M kshlms...@gmail.com wrote: I'm currently testing my changes with liburcu-0.7.* . It is missing just one API which I'm using from 0.8. I've written a local implementation of just that one function, and am currently in process of testing this. If this test is successful, then our problems will be minimized. This only leaves out Debian Wheezy and Ubuntu Precise with liburcu-0.6.* . I tried testing this out, but as liburcu-0.6 doesn't apparently provide pkg-config configurations, I stopped as soon as I started. ~kaushal On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 2:37 PM, Niels de Vos nde...@redhat.com wrote: On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 09:10:36AM +0530, Kaushal M wrote: Thanks for this information Kaleb. I'll check the changes I've done till now with the older versions of the libraries. I think I'm going to need at least the 0.8.* release of liburcu, as some new apis were introduced in it, which I'm using. I'll post the outcome of my tests back here. For a start, I collected the various versions of liburcu (userspace-rcu in some) available in the different distros. This list is based on the distros for which we provide community built packages and test on. - Fedora 21 - 0.8.1 (0.8.5 in testing but stuck due to some breakages) - Fedora 20 - 0.7.7 (0.8.5 in testing but stuck due to some breakages) - EL7 - 0.7.9 - EL6 - 0.7.7 - Debian Wheezy - 0.6.7 - Debian Jessie - 0.8.5 (in testing) - Ubuntu Precise - 0.6.7 - Ubuntu Trusty - 0.7.12 - Ubuntu Utopic - 0.8.4 - Netbsd - 0.8.6 - Freebsd - 0.7.7 The list doesn't look too good. I do not like including libraries in the glusterfs sources. Currently there are several bits under contrib/ that do not see any maintenance. Who will be maintaining (fixing potential bugs, backporting newer versions, ...) for linurcu? Note that we support *many* different distributions, architectures and master+3 releases. It would be *so* much more efficient to use the distributions version of liburcu. Maybe it is possible to write some wrapper functions for the older versions of the library, and place those wrappers in contrib/ instead? Alternatively, we could maintain packages for liburcu in our repositories on download.gluster.org for distributions that do not have a recent enough version. You will need to find a relyable packager that agrees to take on this task. Niels ~kaushal On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 6:30 PM, Kaleb KEITHLEY kkeit...@redhat.com wrote: Hi, Just FYI, what you propose is called bundling in Fedora packaging parlance, and Fedora's packaging guidelines forbid bundling. It is possible to get an exception granted, but it's not safe to presume that an exception will be granted. (For downstream this is a non-issue, but here on gluster-devel we're not concerned with downstream.) You either need to convince the maintainers of liburcu to update to the newer versions everywhere, or you need to implement using the oldest version on the platforms you intend to support. And if this is too onerous, e.g. to use what's in (RH)EL5, then it's another argument in favor of dropping support for (RH)EL5. (The other argument is that python on RHEL5 is too old for geo-rep.) In short, those of use who package gluster in Fedora would be, however reluctantly, required to vote against doing this. I recommend contacting the liburcu maintainers in Fedora/EPEL and see if you can't convince them to update to the newest version. Regards, -- Kaleb /30/2015 12:09 PM, Deepak Shetty wrote: On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 5:05 PM, Kaushal M kshlms...@gmail.com mailto:kshlms...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, I had started a thread previously on the efforts we are undertaking to improve thread synchronization in GlusterD [1]. I had mentioned that we will be using RCU for synchronization and the userspace RCU library (liburcu) [2] for implementation. I am now in a almost in a position to submit changes to Gerrit for review. But, I have an obstacle of making liburcu available on the jenkins slaves. I have begun development using the 0.8.6 version of liburcu, which is the latest stable release. EPEL has liburcu packages for CentOS 6 and 7, but they are the of the older 0.7.* versions. Fedora has packages more recent packages, but they are still older, 0.8.1. [3]. Considering the above situation with binary packages, I'm considering adding liburcu into the GlusterFS tree as a part of /contrib. This will be similar in vein to the argp-standalone library.
Re: [Gluster-devel] Integrating liburcu source into the glusterfs source tree
liburcu is licensed under LGPLv2.1, and can be used by any software compatible with LGPL. IBM, the owners of the patent, provided their approval for this licensing [1]. We are good with regards to this. The liburcu homepage mentions that it has been tested on Linux and FreeBSD, but it should work on NetBSD as well. NetBSD has actively maintained package of liburcu [3] required by KnotDNS (another project which uses liburcu), so I'm assuming there aren't any problems there as well. We will test our changes on these three platforms to guarantee that it indeed works. We've been referring to the PhD dissertation on RCU by Paul McKenney [4] for help with implementation. Sections 5 and 6 of the dissertation discuss RCU design patterns and examples of conversion to non-RCU code to RCU. This has been a good reference for us so far. ~kaushal [1]: https://github.com/urcu/userspace-rcu/blob/master/lgpl-relicensing.txt [2]: http://urcu.so/ Under 'Architectures supported' [3]: http://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdweb.cgi/pkgsrc/devel/userspace-rcu/ [4]: http://www.rdrop.com/~paulmck/RCU/RCUdissertation.2004.07.14e1.pdf On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Anand Avati av...@gluster.org wrote: Apologies for the top post. Adopting RCU is a good step. Some questions and thoughts - Does urcu work on non Linux systems, netbsd? IIRC there were Linux specific permissions on the rcu patent? Maybe only for the kernel? Would be good to confirm. Glusterd is a good place for the first prototype adoption of rcu, esp figuring out the nuances of liburcu (in my view). The perfect use case for liburcu is still brewing in the form of epoll multithreading. That patch creates the perfect conditions on the server side with many threads servicing many clients bouncing the cacheline on so many shared objects and locks - where rcu comes to the rescue. Starting with the events.c shared FD registry, client_t registry, call-pool registry, inode table, each of these are candidates which ask for rcu conversion. The unfortunate part is that cacheline bouncing fixes are all or nothing. As long as there is at least one shared lock in the hot path, the hard work gone into all the previous shared lock fixes remain latent. However the end result is well worth all the efforts. Thanks On Thu, Jan 29, 2015, 03:35 Kaushal M kshlms...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, I had started a thread previously on the efforts we are undertaking to improve thread synchronization in GlusterD [1]. I had mentioned that we will be using RCU for synchronization and the userspace RCU library (liburcu) [2] for implementation. I am now in a almost in a position to submit changes to Gerrit for review. But, I have an obstacle of making liburcu available on the jenkins slaves. I have begun development using the 0.8.6 version of liburcu, which is the latest stable release. EPEL has liburcu packages for CentOS 6 and 7, but they are the of the older 0.7.* versions. Fedora has packages more recent packages, but they are still older, 0.8.1. [3]. Considering the above situation with binary packages, I'm considering adding liburcu into the GlusterFS tree as a part of /contrib. This will be similar in vein to the argp-standalone library. liburcu is licensed under LGPL-v2.1, so I don't think there is going to be any problem including it. But IANAL, so I would like to know of if this would if this is okay from a legal perspective. I'll add the liburcu source to our tree and push the change for review. I'm not really familiar with autotools, so I'll need some help integrating it into our build system. I'll update the list when I have pushed the change for review. In the meantime, I'd like to know if anyone has any objections to this plan. And also want to know of any alternative approaches. ~kaushal [1]: http:// http://www.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-devel/2014-December/043382.html www.gluster.org http://www.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-devel/2014-December/043382.html / http://www.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-devel/2014-December/043382.html pipermail http://www.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-devel/2014-December/043382.html / http://www.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-devel/2014-December/043382.html gluster-devel http://www.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-devel/2014-December/043382.html /2014-December/043382.html http://www.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-devel/2014-December/043382.html [2]: http:// http://urcu.so/urcu.so/ http://urcu.so/ [3]: https https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/userspace-rcu:// https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/userspace-rcu apps.fedoraproject.org https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/userspace-rcu/packages/ https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/userspace-rcuuserspace-rcu https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/userspace-rcu ___ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@gluster.org http:// http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
Re: [Gluster-devel] Integrating liburcu source into the glusterfs source tree
Thanks for this information Kaleb. I'll check the changes I've done till now with the older versions of the libraries. I think I'm going to need at least the 0.8.* release of liburcu, as some new apis were introduced in it, which I'm using. I'll post the outcome of my tests back here. For a start, I collected the various versions of liburcu (userspace-rcu in some) available in the different distros. This list is based on the distros for which we provide community built packages and test on. - Fedora 21 - 0.8.1 (0.8.5 in testing but stuck due to some breakages) - Fedora 20 - 0.7.7 (0.8.5 in testing but stuck due to some breakages) - EL7 - 0.7.9 - EL6 - 0.7.7 - Debian Wheezy - 0.6.7 - Debian Jessie - 0.8.5 (in testing) - Ubuntu Precise - 0.6.7 - Ubuntu Trusty - 0.7.12 - Ubuntu Utopic - 0.8.4 - Netbsd - 0.8.6 - Freebsd - 0.7.7 The list doesn't look too good. ~kaushal On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 6:30 PM, Kaleb KEITHLEY kkeit...@redhat.com wrote: Hi, Just FYI, what you propose is called bundling in Fedora packaging parlance, and Fedora's packaging guidelines forbid bundling. It is possible to get an exception granted, but it's not safe to presume that an exception will be granted. (For downstream this is a non-issue, but here on gluster-devel we're not concerned with downstream.) You either need to convince the maintainers of liburcu to update to the newer versions everywhere, or you need to implement using the oldest version on the platforms you intend to support. And if this is too onerous, e.g. to use what's in (RH)EL5, then it's another argument in favor of dropping support for (RH)EL5. (The other argument is that python on RHEL5 is too old for geo-rep.) In short, those of use who package gluster in Fedora would be, however reluctantly, required to vote against doing this. I recommend contacting the liburcu maintainers in Fedora/EPEL and see if you can't convince them to update to the newest version. Regards, -- Kaleb /30/2015 12:09 PM, Deepak Shetty wrote: On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 5:05 PM, Kaushal M kshlms...@gmail.com mailto:kshlms...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, I had started a thread previously on the efforts we are undertaking to improve thread synchronization in GlusterD [1]. I had mentioned that we will be using RCU for synchronization and the userspace RCU library (liburcu) [2] for implementation. I am now in a almost in a position to submit changes to Gerrit for review. But, I have an obstacle of making liburcu available on the jenkins slaves. I have begun development using the 0.8.6 version of liburcu, which is the latest stable release. EPEL has liburcu packages for CentOS 6 and 7, but they are the of the older 0.7.* versions. Fedora has packages more recent packages, but they are still older, 0.8.1. [3]. Considering the above situation with binary packages, I'm considering adding liburcu into the GlusterFS tree as a part of /contrib. This will be similar in vein to the argp-standalone library. liburcu is licensed under LGPL-v2.1, so I don't think there is going to be any problem including it. But IANAL, so I would like to know of if this would if this is okay from a legal perspective. I'll add the liburcu source to our tree and push the change for review. I'm not really familiar with autotools, so I'll need some help integrating it into our build system. I'll update the list when I have pushed the change for review. How do you intend to add, as a git submodule or ? I had worked on GNU autotools in the past, but frankly don't remember much of it. If any help is needed I can try, or can get someone to help from my ex-company :) thanx, deepak ___ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@gluster.org http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel ___ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@gluster.org http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
Re: [Gluster-devel] Integrating liburcu source into the glusterfs source tree
Hi, Just FYI, what you propose is called bundling in Fedora packaging parlance, and Fedora's packaging guidelines forbid bundling. It is possible to get an exception granted, but it's not safe to presume that an exception will be granted. (For downstream this is a non-issue, but here on gluster-devel we're not concerned with downstream.) You either need to convince the maintainers of liburcu to update to the newer versions everywhere, or you need to implement using the oldest version on the platforms you intend to support. And if this is too onerous, e.g. to use what's in (RH)EL5, then it's another argument in favor of dropping support for (RH)EL5. (The other argument is that python on RHEL5 is too old for geo-rep.) In short, those of use who package gluster in Fedora would be, however reluctantly, required to vote against doing this. I recommend contacting the liburcu maintainers in Fedora/EPEL and see if you can't convince them to update to the newest version. Regards, -- Kaleb /30/2015 12:09 PM, Deepak Shetty wrote: On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 5:05 PM, Kaushal M kshlms...@gmail.com mailto:kshlms...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, I had started a thread previously on the efforts we are undertaking to improve thread synchronization in GlusterD [1]. I had mentioned that we will be using RCU for synchronization and the userspace RCU library (liburcu) [2] for implementation. I am now in a almost in a position to submit changes to Gerrit for review. But, I have an obstacle of making liburcu available on the jenkins slaves. I have begun development using the 0.8.6 version of liburcu, which is the latest stable release. EPEL has liburcu packages for CentOS 6 and 7, but they are the of the older 0.7.* versions. Fedora has packages more recent packages, but they are still older, 0.8.1. [3]. Considering the above situation with binary packages, I'm considering adding liburcu into the GlusterFS tree as a part of /contrib. This will be similar in vein to the argp-standalone library. liburcu is licensed under LGPL-v2.1, so I don't think there is going to be any problem including it. But IANAL, so I would like to know of if this would if this is okay from a legal perspective. I'll add the liburcu source to our tree and push the change for review. I'm not really familiar with autotools, so I'll need some help integrating it into our build system. I'll update the list when I have pushed the change for review. How do you intend to add, as a git submodule or ? I had worked on GNU autotools in the past, but frankly don't remember much of it. If any help is needed I can try, or can get someone to help from my ex-company :) thanx, deepak ___ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@gluster.org http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel ___ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@gluster.org http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
Re: [Gluster-devel] Integrating liburcu source into the glusterfs source tree
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 5:05 PM, Kaushal M kshlms...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, I had started a thread previously on the efforts we are undertaking to improve thread synchronization in GlusterD [1]. I had mentioned that we will be using RCU for synchronization and the userspace RCU library (liburcu) [2] for implementation. I am now in a almost in a position to submit changes to Gerrit for review. But, I have an obstacle of making liburcu available on the jenkins slaves. I have begun development using the 0.8.6 version of liburcu, which is the latest stable release. EPEL has liburcu packages for CentOS 6 and 7, but they are the of the older 0.7.* versions. Fedora has packages more recent packages, but they are still older, 0.8.1. [3]. Considering the above situation with binary packages, I'm considering adding liburcu into the GlusterFS tree as a part of /contrib. This will be similar in vein to the argp-standalone library. liburcu is licensed under LGPL-v2.1, so I don't think there is going to be any problem including it. But IANAL, so I would like to know of if this would if this is okay from a legal perspective. I'll add the liburcu source to our tree and push the change for review. I'm not really familiar with autotools, so I'll need some help integrating it into our build system. I'll update the list when I have pushed the change for review. How do you intend to add, as a git submodule or ? I had worked on GNU autotools in the past, but frankly don't remember much of it. If any help is needed I can try, or can get someone to help from my ex-company :) thanx, deepak ___ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@gluster.org http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
[Gluster-devel] Integrating liburcu source into the glusterfs source tree
Hi all, I had started a thread previously on the efforts we are undertaking to improve thread synchronization in GlusterD [1]. I had mentioned that we will be using RCU for synchronization and the userspace RCU library (liburcu) [2] for implementation. I am now in a almost in a position to submit changes to Gerrit for review. But, I have an obstacle of making liburcu available on the jenkins slaves. I have begun development using the 0.8.6 version of liburcu, which is the latest stable release. EPEL has liburcu packages for CentOS 6 and 7, but they are the of the older 0.7.* versions. Fedora has packages more recent packages, but they are still older, 0.8.1. [3]. Considering the above situation with binary packages, I'm considering adding liburcu into the GlusterFS tree as a part of /contrib. This will be similar in vein to the argp-standalone library. liburcu is licensed under LGPL-v2.1, so I don't think there is going to be any problem including it. But IANAL, so I would like to know of if this would if this is okay from a legal perspective. I'll add the liburcu source to our tree and push the change for review. I'm not really familiar with autotools, so I'll need some help integrating it into our build system. I'll update the list when I have pushed the change for review. In the meantime, I'd like to know if anyone has any objections to this plan. And also want to know of any alternative approaches. ~kaushal [1]: http://www.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-devel/2014-December/043382.html [2]: http://urcu.so/ [3]: https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/userspace-rcu ___ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@gluster.org http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
