[PATCHES] Convert gencache to dbwrap to enable mutexes

[Christof Schmitt]

On Wed, Jul 09, 2014 at 05:25:05PM +0200, Michael Adam wrote:
> On 2014-07-08 at 15:14 -0700, Christof Schmitt wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 02:25:46PM +0200, Michael Adam wrote:
> > > On 2014-06-25 at 14:19 +0200, Volker Lendecke wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 02:05:08PM +0200, Michael Adam wrote:
> > > > > On 2014-06-25 at 13:35 +0200, Volker Lendecke wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 01:18:27PM +0200, Michael Adam wrote:
> > > > > > > This would allow to use mutexes correctly
> > > > > > > on gencache_notrans. In order to convert
> > > > > > > it to dbwrap, we need to add a means of
> > > > > > > using allrecord lock via dbrwap (it does
> > > > > > > currently not offer it).
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ... and I would try to avoid this. I'm not sure I want to
> > > > > > think about implementing an allrecord lock for a ctdb
> > > > > > database. I'd rather not go through dbwrap for
> > > > > > gencache_notrans if that's the only reason to implement a
> > > > > > dbwrap_allrecord_lock.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Right, but we could of course choose to *not* implement it
> > > > > in the dbwrap_ctdb case...
> > > > > 
> > > > > Independently of the choice whether to do the allrecord
> > > > > lock throught ctdb or not, do you think the above change
> > > > > to gencache_stabilize (on the tdb level) would make sense?
> > > > 
> > > > Sure. But with your freelist patches, do we still need the
> > > > wipe_all? This should be a nice test if freelist compaction
> > > > actually works as designed :-)
> > > 
> > > Ok, sure!
> > > But in that case I would do rather a second traverse of the
> > > cache_notrans db and do tdb_delete there, in order not to
> > > loose entries if the transaction on the persistent db fails.
> > > Not as performant as using wipe_all probably, but still. :-)
> > 
> > Sorry, i got a bit lost in this discussion. Is the current proposal
> > changing gencache_notrans to not use transactions, convert it to dbwrap
> > and add the mutex check to the local dbwrap codepath?
> > 
> > I can take a stab at implementing that.
> 
> Sorry, I lost track myself.
> I have a bunch of almost finished patches to the gencache
> db code triggered by this discussion that I meant to post a
> lot earlier. These remove the transaction from the notrans db.
> These could serve as a foundation for your further work.
> 
> I hope to be able to post them asap, hopefully tonight or tomorrow,
> if you still have a little bit of patience with me. :-)

I just found your wip patch to remove transactions from
gencache_notrans:
http://git.samba.org/?p=obnox/samba/samba-obnox.git;a=commitdiff;h=aa4fddf24f7fa8c2d4feba2adc70417c4f935ede

Can we work towards getting that patch ready? After that, we can either
convert gencache_notrans to dbwrap, or add mutex support to tdb_wrap and
convert gencache_notrans to tdb_wrap as suggested by Volker in
https://lists.samba.org/archive/samba-technical/2014-September/102699.html

Christof