From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 87B22B8CD6 for ; Wed, 6 Dec 2023 14:41:28 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 6A20A29CA for ; Wed, 6 Dec 2023 14:41:28 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [94.136.29.106]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS for ; Wed, 6 Dec 2023 14:41:27 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 2B4B842506 for ; Wed, 6 Dec 2023 14:41:27 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2023 14:41:26 +0100 (CET) From: =?UTF-8?Q?Fabian_Gr=C3=BCnbichler?= To: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion , Gabriel Goller Message-ID: <1764237283.1899.1701870086441@webmail.proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <20231206132834.240700-1-g.goller@proxmox.com> References: <20231206132834.240700-1-g.goller@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Open-Xchange Mailer v7.10.6-Rev55 X-Originating-Client: open-xchange-appsuite X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.064 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 - Subject: Re: [pbs-devel] [PATCH v2 proxmox{, -backup} 0/2] Move ProcessLocker to tmpfs X-BeenThere: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2023 13:41:28 -0000 > Gabriel Goller hat am 06.12.2023 14:28 CET geschrieben: > This moves the `ProcessLocker`'s `.lock` file to `/run/proxmox-backup/locks` (tmpfs). > > The first patch only converts all the `F_SETLK` flags to `F_OFD_SETLK` flags. This > changes normal locks, which are based on the process, to locks based on an open file > descriptor. This actually doesn't change anything, because we use mutexes, so the > lock is already thread-safe. It would be cleaner though and would safe us from > weird quirks like closing the lock-file which would drop all the locks when using > the POSIX `F_SETLK`. See more here [0]. this might be moot, since most likely both patches go in at the same time, is this change reload/upgrade-compatible? i.e., if an old proxmox-backup(-proxy) process is (still) running that has the lock open with F_SETLK, and the new one obtains it using F_OFD_SETLK, is the behaviour still correct? (the other direction might be interesting too, but can only happen on an unsupported downgrade) > The second patch changes the location of the `.lock` file to the `/run/proxmox-backup/locks` > tmpfs directory. Like this we don't need to lazy-lock anything and we can keep the lockfile > open all the time. Unmounting datastores is now possible as the lock file is not on the > datastore mount anymore. the same question applies here with the changed path and reloads. if not (and this seems rather likely if the path changes), we might need an explicit hand-over and compat code that obtains both locks at least as long as any old processes are still running?