Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

chore: add an example for the timeouts of spdk bdev_nvme_attach_controller #172

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Dec 2, 2024

Conversation

derekbit
Copy link
Member

@derekbit derekbit commented Dec 1, 2024

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

Issue longhorn/longhorn#9874

What this PR does / why we need it:

Special notes for your reviewer:

Additional documentation or context

@derekbit derekbit self-assigned this Dec 1, 2024
Copy link

coderabbitai bot commented Dec 1, 2024

Walkthrough

The pull request introduces modifications to the pkg/types/types.go file, adding a new constant ExecuteTimeout set to 60 seconds and updating the existing DefaultTransportAckTimeout from 14 to 10. The comments related to these constants have been revised for clarity, particularly regarding timeout mechanisms for I/O command handling. These changes aim to enhance the documentation of timeout processes without impacting existing functionalities.

Changes

File Change Summary
pkg/types/types.go - Added constant ExecuteTimeout (60 seconds).
- Updated DefaultTransportAckTimeout from 14 to 10 and modified its comment.

Assessment against linked issues

Objective Addressed Explanation
Ensure timeout settings are correctly defined to prevent ERROR states (#9874)

Possibly related PRs

  • fix: decrease ctrlr_loss_timeout_sec for base bdev #170: The changes in this PR also modify constants in the pkg/types/types.go file, specifically updating the DefaultCtrlrLossTimeoutSec and DefaultFastIOFailTimeoutSec, which are related to timeout configurations similar to the modifications made in the main PR.

Suggested reviewers

  • innobead
  • c3y1huang
  • DamiaSan

Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media?

❤️ Share
🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

  • Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
    • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
    • Generate unit testing code for this file.
    • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
  • Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
    • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
  • PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
    • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
    • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
    • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments.

CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)

  • @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
  • @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
  • @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
  • @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
  • @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
  • @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

  • Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
  • Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
  • Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

Documentation and Community

  • Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
  • Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
  • Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

Copy link

codecov bot commented Dec 1, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 22.89%. Comparing base (e912304) to head (1bbbb0b).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #172      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   22.95%   22.89%   -0.07%     
==========================================
  Files          34       34              
  Lines        4813     4813              
==========================================
- Hits         1105     1102       -3     
- Misses       3535     3537       +2     
- Partials      173      174       +1     
Flag Coverage Δ
unittests 22.89% <ø> (-0.07%) ⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

Copy link

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Actionable comments posted: 0

🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
pkg/types/types.go (1)

29-42: Fix typo in reconnection delay documentation

The documentation provides excellent clarity on the timeout sequence. However, there's a typo in step 6:

-    2Reconnect_Delay_Sec seconds.
+    DefaultReconnectDelaySec seconds.

The detailed documentation of the timeout sequence is valuable, especially for understanding the controller loss and reconnection behavior related to the instance manager deletion issue.

📜 Review details

Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between e912304 and 1bbbb0b.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • pkg/types/types.go (1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (2)
pkg/types/types.go (2)

25-26: Document the purpose of ExecuteTimeout constant

The newly added ExecuteTimeout constant lacks documentation explaining its purpose and relationship to other timeout constants. Given its 60-second duration, which is longer than other timeouts, it's important to understand:

  1. When and where this timeout is used
  2. How it relates to the instance manager deletion scenario
  3. Why 60 seconds was chosen as the value

50-53: Verify impact of reduced transport ACK timeout

The change reduces the transport ACK timeout from ~16.384s (2^14 ms) to ~1.024s (2^10 ms). While faster error detection is generally beneficial, please verify:

  1. Whether this reduction could affect the stability of NVMe connections during instance manager operations
  2. If this change has been tested with various network conditions
  3. How this interacts with DefaultCtrlrLossTimeoutSec (15s) and DefaultFastIOFailTimeoutSec (10s)

Consider documenting the relationship between these different timeouts in a diagram or table, showing how they interact during various failure scenarios.

@derekbit derekbit requested a review from DamiaSan December 1, 2024 12:05
@derekbit
Copy link
Member Author

derekbit commented Dec 2, 2024

@DamiaSan Can you help review it? Thank you.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants