Commit 91c0dc93 authored by David Teigland's avatar David Teigland Committed by Steven Whitehouse

[DLM] fix aborted recovery during node removal

Red Hat BZ 211914

With the new cluster infrastructure, dlm recovery for a node removal can
be aborted and restarted for a node addition.  When this happens, the
restarted recovery isn't aware that it's doing recovery for the earlier
removal as well as the addition.  So, it then skips the recovery steps
only required when nodes are removed.  This can result in locks not being
purged for failed/removed nodes.  The fix is to check for removed nodes
for which recovery has not been completed at the start of a new recovery
sequence.
Signed-off-by: default avatarDavid Teigland <teigland@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarSteven Whitehouse <swhiteho@redhat.com>
parent d4400156
...@@ -186,6 +186,14 @@ int dlm_recover_members(struct dlm_ls *ls, struct dlm_recover *rv, int *neg_out) ...@@ -186,6 +186,14 @@ int dlm_recover_members(struct dlm_ls *ls, struct dlm_recover *rv, int *neg_out)
struct dlm_member *memb, *safe; struct dlm_member *memb, *safe;
int i, error, found, pos = 0, neg = 0, low = -1; int i, error, found, pos = 0, neg = 0, low = -1;
/* previously removed members that we've not finished removing need to
count as a negative change so the "neg" recovery steps will happen */
list_for_each_entry(memb, &ls->ls_nodes_gone, list) {
log_debug(ls, "prev removed member %d", memb->nodeid);
neg++;
}
/* move departed members from ls_nodes to ls_nodes_gone */ /* move departed members from ls_nodes to ls_nodes_gone */
list_for_each_entry_safe(memb, safe, &ls->ls_nodes, list) { list_for_each_entry_safe(memb, safe, &ls->ls_nodes, list) {
......
...@@ -164,6 +164,13 @@ static int ls_recover(struct dlm_ls *ls, struct dlm_recover *rv) ...@@ -164,6 +164,13 @@ static int ls_recover(struct dlm_ls *ls, struct dlm_recover *rv)
*/ */
dlm_recover_rsbs(ls); dlm_recover_rsbs(ls);
} else {
/*
* Other lockspace members may be going through the "neg" steps
* while also adding us to the lockspace, in which case they'll
* be looking for this status bit during dlm_recover_locks().
*/
dlm_set_recover_status(ls, DLM_RS_LOCKS);
} }
dlm_release_root_list(ls); dlm_release_root_list(ls);
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment