[Date Prev][Date Next]
RE: back-bdb DB_RECOVER and soft restart
Matthew Hardin writes:
>>From: Hallvard B Furuseth [mailto:email@example.com]
>>Matthew Hardin writes:
>>> On startup each instance of back-bdb will do the following:
>>> 2. Attempt to place a write lock on the lock file. (...)
>>> 5. Wait for a read lock on the lock file and leave it there for the
>>> life of the back-bdb instance.
>> Why get a read lock when you already have a write lock?
> (...) Demoting a write lock to a read lock (...)
Oh... that was the point I was missing. But if a file descriptor has a
write lock, are you sure that acquiring a read lock will lose the write
lock? On all operating systems that use Berkeley DB, and all kinds of
locks OpenLDAP might use?
>> Besides, if you will use libraries/liblutil/lockf.c:lutil_lockf, that
>> may use lockf() which only supports 'locks', not 'read/write locks'.
> Thanks for the tip. I'll have to look into that.
BTW, I think this is a (somewhat inefficient) way to get up to 2047
read/write locks with lockf():
lockf() locks a _section_ of the file. So,
- to get a write lock, wait for a lock on all the 2048 bytes.
- to get a read lock, first wait for a lock on byte #0. This will wait
for any write lock to be released. Then try - without waiting - to
lock one random byte among bytes#1-2047. This will be the read lock.
Repeat until success, or give up and fail if there is no free byte.
Finally, release the lock on byte #0.
If there is a read lock, A process waiting for a write lock will be
bypassed by later processes asking for read locks, so it may wait
forever. If you don't want that, let write locking lock byte #0 first
and then all 2048 bytes.