Re: Make sm-notify faster if there are no servers to notify

["Phil Endecott" <phil_bnaqb_endecott-wZDNlLIRyE5g9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org>]

J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 05:30:03PM +0000, Phil Endecott wrote:
>> J. Bruce Fields wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 12:13:20AM +0000, Phil Endecott wrote:
>>>> Dear Experts,
>>>>
>>>> sm-notify was taking a long time while my laptop booted.  This was 
>>>> odd because I use NFS only rarely - via autofs - on that machine, and 
>>>> sm-notify actually has no-one to notify most of the time.  So I have 
>>>> patched it as follows.  Is this a legitimate thing to do?
>>>
>>> It looks like your patch was committed to nfs-utils a couple weeks ago:
>>> see c8d18e26d2a53d9036a32c2dafebccaf4ce1634d from
>>>
>>> 	git://linux-nfs.org/nfs-utils
>>>
>>> --b.
>>
>> How curious.  I guess someone saw my Debian bug report.  No mention of  
>> it on this list as far as I can see though.
>>
>> I presume from this that it is considered a safe thing to do.
>
> It looks right to me.  Hopefully somebody actually has tested this on a
> client that holds locks when it reboots?

Not me.

> I remember this was one of the things Arjan mentioned having to disable
> in his "5-second boot" talk at the Linux Plumbers Conference, so you're
> not the only one to have noticed the problem....

Yes; I noticed the huge pause due to the sync() and applied this fix.  
It was only later that I looked at Arjan's slides (I had to wait until 
someone had converted then from PowerPoint to PDF...) and saw that he 
had the same thing in his bootchart.


Phil.