From: Martin Wilck <mwilck@suse.de>
To: Zdenek Kabelac <zdenek.kabelac@gmail.com>,
LVM general discussion and development <linux-lvm@redhat.com>,
David Teigland <teigland@redhat.com>
Cc: Heming Zhao <heming.zhao@suse.com>
Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] system boot time regression when using lvm2-2.03.05
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2019 15:58:11 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <abd460b530b135b8a2c31ea728fc93d4d293ab81.camel@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <884e9e0c-89ee-803b-78bd-cce7a9686c23@gmail.com>
On Wed, 2019-09-11 at 11:13 +0200, Zdenek Kabelac wrote:
> Dne 11. 09. 19 v 9:17 Martin Wilck napsal(a):
> >
> > My idea was not to skip synchronization entirely, but to consider
> > moving it to a separate process / service. I surely don't want to
> > re-
> > invent lvmetad, but Heming's findings show that it's more efficient
> > to
> > do activation in a "single swoop" (like lvm2-activation.service)
> > than
> > with many concurrent pvscan processes.
> >
> > So instead of activating a VG immediately when it sees all
> > necessary
> > PVs are detected, pvscan could simply spawn a new service which
> > would
> > then take care of the activation, and sync with udev.
> >
> > Just a thought, I lack in-depth knowledge of LVM2 internals to know
> > if
> > it's possible.
>
> Well for relatively long time we do want to move 'pvscan' back to be
> processed
> within udev rules and activation service being really just a service
> doing 'vgchange -ay'.
That sounds promising (I believe pvscan could well still be called via
'ENV{SYSTEMD_WANTS}+=' rather than being directly called from udev
rules, but that's just a detail).
But it doesn't sound as if such a solution was imminent, right?
> Another floating idea is to move towards monitoring instead of using
> semaphore
> (since those SysV resources are kind-of limited and a bit problematic
> when there are left in the system).
I'm not sure I understand - are you talking about udev monitoring?
Thanks
Martin
prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-09-12 13:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-08-29 13:52 [linux-lvm] system boot time regression when using lvm2-2.03.05 Heming Zhao
2019-08-29 14:37 ` David Teigland
2019-09-03 5:02 ` Heming Zhao
2019-09-03 15:17 ` David Teigland
2019-09-04 8:13 ` Heming Zhao
2019-09-05 12:35 ` Heming Zhao
2019-09-05 16:55 ` David Teigland
2019-09-06 4:31 ` Heming Zhao
2019-09-06 5:01 ` Heming Zhao
2019-09-06 6:51 ` Martin Wilck
2019-09-06 8:46 ` Heming Zhao
2019-09-06 14:15 ` David Teigland
2019-09-06 14:26 ` David Teigland
2019-09-06 14:03 ` David Teigland
2019-09-09 11:42 ` Heming Zhao
2019-09-09 14:09 ` David Teigland
2019-09-10 8:01 ` Martin Wilck
2019-09-10 15:20 ` David Teigland
2019-09-10 20:38 ` Zdenek Kabelac
2019-09-11 7:17 ` Martin Wilck
2019-09-11 9:13 ` Zdenek Kabelac
2019-09-12 13:58 ` Martin Wilck [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=abd460b530b135b8a2c31ea728fc93d4d293ab81.camel@suse.de \
--to=mwilck@suse.de \
--cc=heming.zhao@suse.com \
--cc=linux-lvm@redhat.com \
--cc=teigland@redhat.com \
--cc=zdenek.kabelac@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).