* [PATCH] Access cache forgetting mode bits @ 2003-08-28 16:39 Steve Dickson 2003-08-28 21:51 ` Andreas Gruenbacher 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Steve Dickson @ 2003-08-28 16:39 UTC (permalink / raw) To: nfs [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 971 bytes --] While debugging something else, I notice that every time I did a ls on a nfs mounted directory a wto ACCESS rpc was *always* happening (with a 2.4.21 kernel). Taking a closer look it turns out the access cache was dropping previous access bits. Here is the scenario... nfs_permission is called with mode = MAY_EXEC the cached value is Zero so an ACCESS rpc is done. after the rpc, the cached value is _set_ to MAY_EXEC then nfs_permission is called with mode = MAY_READ the cached value is MAY_EXEC, so an ACCESS rpc is done. after the rpc, the cache value is _set_ to MAY_READ again, nfs_permission is called with mode = MAY_EXEC this time the cached value is MAY_READ so _again_ an RPC is done after the rpc, the cached value is _set_ to MAY_EXEC Its a vicious cycle... So this patch changes the setting of the masked value to the or-ing of the masked value. This cause the previous bits to be remembered thus cutting down on the number of otw rpcs... SteveD. [-- Attachment #2: linux-2.4.21-nfs-accesscache.patch --] [-- Type: text/plain, Size: 364 bytes --] --- linux-2.4.21/fs/nfs/dir.c.diff 2003-08-28 12:13:22.000000000 -0400 +++ linux-2.4.21/fs/nfs/dir.c 2003-08-28 12:13:47.000000000 -0400 @@ -1278,7 +1278,7 @@ nfs_permission(struct inode *inode, int if (cache->cred) put_rpccred(cache->cred); cache->cred = cred; - cache->mask = mask; + cache->mask |= mask; cache->err = error; return error; } ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Access cache forgetting mode bits 2003-08-28 16:39 [PATCH] Access cache forgetting mode bits Steve Dickson @ 2003-08-28 21:51 ` Andreas Gruenbacher 2003-08-29 13:14 ` Steve Dickson 2003-08-31 20:33 ` Steve Dickson 0 siblings, 2 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Andreas Gruenbacher @ 2003-08-28 21:51 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Steve Dickson; +Cc: nfs [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2764 bytes --] Hi, your idea idea is good, but the patch is incorrect in at least two ways: (1) it merges the cached results of successful and unsuccessful requests, (2) [access("file", R_OK) == 0] and [access("file", W_OK) == 0] does not imply [access("file", R_OK | W_OK) == 0]. Luckily, [access("file", R_OK | W_OK) == 0] does imply both [access("file", R_OK) == 0] and [access("file", W_OK) == 0] though. We could take this to our advantage, and optimize for the common case. How about the attached patch? In the worst case, with "weird" permissions this will double the number of RPCs needed, but this will not happen on "real" systems. The NFS access cache has a problem if mounted file systems are accessed by multiple users: The results of only a single user are cached. When another user comes along, cache trashing similar to what Steve has observed will occur. Steve, you seem to be looking into the nfsacl extensions as well. ACLs are not cached on the client side, so operations like `ls -l' (which need to check which files have ACLs) also produce lots of RPCs. I don't see this as a significant problem at this point. On Thu, 2003-08-28 at 18:39, Steve Dickson wrote: > While debugging something else, I notice that every time > I did a ls on a nfs mounted directory a wto ACCESS rpc was > *always* happening (with a 2.4.21 kernel). Taking a closer > look it turns out the access cache was dropping previous > access bits. Here is the scenario... > > nfs_permission is called with mode = MAY_EXEC > the cached value is Zero so an ACCESS rpc is done. > after the rpc, the cached value is _set_ to MAY_EXEC > > then nfs_permission is called with mode = MAY_READ > the cached value is MAY_EXEC, so an ACCESS rpc is done. > after the rpc, the cache value is _set_ to MAY_READ > > again, nfs_permission is called with mode = MAY_EXEC > this time the cached value is MAY_READ so _again_ an RPC is done > after the rpc, the cached value is _set_ to MAY_EXEC > > Its a vicious cycle... > > So this patch changes the setting of the masked value > to the or-ing of the masked value. This cause the > previous bits to be remembered thus cutting down on > the number of otw rpcs... > > > SteveD. > > ______________________________________________________________________ > > --- linux-2.4.21/fs/nfs/dir.c.diff 2003-08-28 12:13:22.000000000 -0400 > +++ linux-2.4.21/fs/nfs/dir.c 2003-08-28 12:13:47.000000000 -0400 > @@ -1278,7 +1278,7 @@ nfs_permission(struct inode *inode, int > if (cache->cred) > put_rpccred(cache->cred); > cache->cred = cred; > - cache->mask = mask; > + cache->mask |= mask; > cache->err = error; > return error; > } Cheers, -- Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@suse.de> SuSE Labs, SuSE Linux AG <http://www.suse.de/> [-- Attachment #2: nfsd-optimistic-caching.diff --] [-- Type: text/plain, Size: 961 bytes --] Index: linux-2.4.21/fs/nfs/dir.c =================================================================== --- linux-2.4.21.orig/fs/nfs/dir.c 2003-08-28 16:50:33.000000000 +0200 +++ linux-2.4.21/fs/nfs/dir.c 2003-08-28 23:19:27.000000000 +0200 @@ -1266,6 +1266,13 @@ nfs_permission(struct inode *inode, int /* Is the mask a subset of an accepted mask? */ if ((cache->mask & mask) == mask) goto out_cached; + /* Try with expanded credentials. */ + error = NFS_PROTO(inode)->access(inode, cred, + mask | cache->mask); + if (!error || !cache->mask) { + mask |= cache->mask; + goto rpc_done; + } } else { /* ...or is it a superset of a rejected mask? */ if ((cache->mask & mask) == cache->mask) @@ -1273,6 +1280,7 @@ nfs_permission(struct inode *inode, int } } error = NFS_PROTO(inode)->access(inode, cred, mask); +rpc_done: if (!error || error == -EACCES) { cache->jiffies = jiffies; if (cache->cred) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Access cache forgetting mode bits 2003-08-28 21:51 ` Andreas Gruenbacher @ 2003-08-29 13:14 ` Steve Dickson 2003-08-31 20:33 ` Steve Dickson 1 sibling, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Steve Dickson @ 2003-08-29 13:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andreas Gruenbacher; +Cc: nfs Andreas Gruenbacher wrote: >your idea idea is good, but the patch is incorrect in at least two ways: >(1) it merges the cached results of successful and unsuccessful >requests, (2) [access("file", R_OK) == 0] and [access("file", W_OK) == >0] does not imply [access("file", R_OK | W_OK) == 0]. > Good point! >[....] How about the attached patch? In the worst case, with "weird" permissions >this will double the number of RPCs needed, but this will not happen on >"real" systems. > Yes... your patch does seem to work with "normal" cases.... which is probably the best we can hope for... >The NFS access cache has a problem if mounted file systems are accessed >by multiple users: The results of only a single user are cached. When >another user comes along, cache trashing similar to what Steve has >observed will occur. > > True... its too bad the cred cache doesn't use uids and gids.... >Steve, you seem to be looking into the nfsacl extensions as well. ACLs >are not cached on the client side, so operations like `ls -l' (which >need to check which files have ACLs) also produce lots of RPCs. I don't >see this as a significant problem at this point. > Caches are always a good idea wrt to NFS... but I guess only time will tell wrt nfsacls... SteveD. ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ NFS maillist - NFS@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Access cache forgetting mode bits 2003-08-28 21:51 ` Andreas Gruenbacher 2003-08-29 13:14 ` Steve Dickson @ 2003-08-31 20:33 ` Steve Dickson 2003-08-31 23:25 ` Andreas Gruenbacher 1 sibling, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Steve Dickson @ 2003-08-31 20:33 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andreas Gruenbacher, Trond Myklebust; +Cc: nfs [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 684 bytes --] Hello, I'm thinking there might even be a better way to cache these bits... It seems the OS calls nfs_permission() to test each permission bit which in turn causes an otw access rpc for every call (assuming the same person and same bit is *not* asked for ) and even with Andreas patch's there are at least two rpcs for one access call.... Now what if on the first access call, we get *all* of the access bits from the server and cache them locally (i.e. in cache->mask). That way when nfs_permission() is called again, all if the needed info is there... The attached patch does just that and it really seems to cut down on the amount access rpc needed... Thoughts? SteveD. [-- Attachment #2: linux-2.4.21-nfs-accesscache.patch --] [-- Type: text/plain, Size: 364 bytes --] --- linux-2.4.21/fs/nfs/dir.c.diff 2003-08-28 12:13:22.000000000 -0400 +++ linux-2.4.21/fs/nfs/dir.c 2003-08-28 12:13:47.000000000 -0400 @@ -1278,7 +1278,7 @@ nfs_permission(struct inode *inode, int if (cache->cred) put_rpccred(cache->cred); cache->cred = cred; - cache->mask = mask; + cache->mask |= mask; cache->err = error; return error; } ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Access cache forgetting mode bits 2003-08-31 20:33 ` Steve Dickson @ 2003-08-31 23:25 ` Andreas Gruenbacher 2003-09-01 3:22 ` Steve Dickson 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Andreas Gruenbacher @ 2003-08-31 23:25 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Steve Dickson; +Cc: Trond Myklebust, nfs, Olaf Kirch [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1294 bytes --] On Sun, 2003-08-31 at 22:33, Steve Dickson wrote: > Hello, > > I'm thinking there might even be a better way to cache these bits... > > It seems the OS calls nfs_permission() to test each permission Individually you mean? That's not at all the case in general. > [...] even with Andreas patch's there are at least two rpcs for one access call.... No, two different, consecutice permission checks will result in two RPCs. It is possible to optimize another common case: Directory accesses are seldom denied, and users are usually granted both r and x at once. The attached patch optimizes that; it's the same pattern as in my first patch. I'm in doubt whether this optimization is worth it, though. For non-directories, I don't think a common enough case exists that would deserve optimization. > what if on the first access call, we get *all* of the access bits > from the > server and cache them locally (i.e. in cache->mask). That way when > nfs_permission() > is called again, all if the needed info is there... The attached patch > does just that > and it really seems to cut down on the amount access rpc needed... > > Thoughts? You have again attached your first, buggy patch. Cheers, -- Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@suse.de> SuSE Labs, SuSE Linux AG <http://www.suse.de/> [-- Attachment #2: nfs-more-optimistic.diff --] [-- Type: text/plain, Size: 660 bytes --] Index: linux-2.4.21/fs/nfs/dir.c =================================================================== --- linux-2.4.21.orig/fs/nfs/dir.c 2003-09-01 00:46:26.000000000 +0200 +++ linux-2.4.21/fs/nfs/dir.c 2003-09-01 01:09:27.000000000 +0200 @@ -1278,6 +1278,13 @@ nfs_permission(struct inode *inode, int if ((cache->mask & mask) == cache->mask) goto out_cached; } + } else if (S_ISDIR(mode)) { + int try_mask = mask | S_IROTH | S_IXOTH; + error = NFS_PROTO(inode)->access(inode, cred, try_mask); + if (!error || mask == try_mask) { + mask = try_mask; + goto rpc_done; + } } error = NFS_PROTO(inode)->access(inode, cred, mask); rpc_done: ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Access cache forgetting mode bits 2003-08-31 23:25 ` Andreas Gruenbacher @ 2003-09-01 3:22 ` Steve Dickson 2003-09-01 3:52 ` Trond Myklebust 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Steve Dickson @ 2003-09-01 3:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andreas Gruenbacher; +Cc: Trond Myklebust, nfs, Olaf Kirch [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 905 bytes --] Andreas Gruenbacher wrote: >On Sun, 2003-08-31 at 22:33, Steve Dickson wrote: > > >> >>I'm thinking there might even be a better way to cache these bits... >> >>It seems the OS calls nfs_permission() to test each permission >> >> > >Individually you mean? That's not at all the case in general. > Yes... So at times there will be more than one bit set in the mask? I know that's how it works in other OS but I was not sure with linux... >>what if on the first access call, we get *all* of the access bits >>from the >>server and cache them locally (i.e. in cache->mask). That way when >>nfs_permission() >>is called again, all if the needed info is there... The attached patch >>does just that >>and it really seems to cut down on the amount access rpc needed... >> >>Thoughts? >> >> > >You have again attached your first, buggy patch. > > Oops... I hate when that happens.... SteveD. [-- Attachment #2: linux-2.4.21-nfs-accesscache.patch --] [-- Type: text/plain, Size: 3393 bytes --] --- linux-2.4.21/fs/nfs/dir.c.orig 2003-08-31 13:04:30.000000000 -0400 +++ linux-2.4.21/fs/nfs/dir.c 2003-08-31 13:07:49.000000000 -0400 @@ -1259,17 +1259,21 @@ nfs_permission(struct inode *inode, int if ((server->flags & NFS_MOUNT_NOACL) || !NFS_PROTO(inode)->access) goto out_notsup; + /* + * See if we can use the cache + */ cred = rpcauth_lookupcred(NFS_CLIENT(inode)->cl_auth, 0); if (cache->cred == cred && time_before(jiffies, cache->jiffies + NFS_ATTRTIMEO(inode))) { - if (!cache->err) { - /* Is the mask a subset of an accepted mask? */ - if ((cache->mask & mask) == mask) - goto out_cached; - } else { - /* ...or is it a superset of a rejected mask? */ - if ((cache->mask & mask) == cache->mask) - goto out_cached; + /* Is the mask a subset of an accepted mask? */ + if ((cache->mask & mask) == mask) { + cache->err = 0; + goto out_cached; + } + /* ...or is it a superset of a rejected mask? */ + if ((~cache->mask & mask) == mask) { + cache->err = -EACCES; + goto out_cached; } } error = NFS_PROTO(inode)->access(inode, cred, mask); @@ -1278,8 +1282,6 @@ nfs_permission(struct inode *inode, int if (cache->cred) put_rpccred(cache->cred); cache->cred = cred; - cache->mask = mask; - cache->err = error; return error; } put_rpccred(cred); --- linux-2.4.21/fs/nfs/nfs3proc.c.orig 2003-08-30 16:30:57.000000000 -0400 +++ linux-2.4.21/fs/nfs/nfs3proc.c 2003-08-31 12:58:11.000000000 -0400 @@ -121,10 +121,13 @@ static int nfs3_proc_access(struct inode *inode, struct rpc_cred *cred, int mode) { struct nfs_fattr fattr; + struct nfs_access_cache *cache = &NFS_I(inode)->cache_access; struct nfs3_accessargs arg = { NFS_FH(inode), 0 }; struct nfs3_accessres res = { &fattr, 0 }; struct rpc_message msg = { NFS3PROC_ACCESS, &arg, &res, cred }; int status; + static int may_write, may_exec; + __u32 access; dprintk("NFS call access\n"); fattr.valid = 0; @@ -134,20 +137,45 @@ nfs3_proc_access(struct inode *inode, st if (S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode)) { if (mode & MAY_WRITE) arg.access |= NFS3_ACCESS_MODIFY | NFS3_ACCESS_EXTEND | NFS3_ACCESS_DELETE; + may_write = NFS3_ACCESS_MODIFY| NFS3_ACCESS_EXTEND | NFS3_ACCESS_DELETE; + if (mode & MAY_EXEC) arg.access |= NFS3_ACCESS_LOOKUP; + may_exec = NFS3_ACCESS_LOOKUP; + } else { if (mode & MAY_WRITE) arg.access |= NFS3_ACCESS_MODIFY | NFS3_ACCESS_EXTEND; + may_write = NFS3_ACCESS_MODIFY | NFS3_ACCESS_EXTEND; + if (mode & MAY_EXEC) arg.access |= NFS3_ACCESS_EXECUTE; + may_exec = NFS3_ACCESS_EXECUTE; } + /* + * Save off whats needed and then ask for all of the mode bits + * which will be cached + */ + access = arg.access; + arg.access = (NFS3_ACCESS_EXECUTE|NFS3_ACCESS_READ|NFS3_ACCESS_MODIFY| + NFS3_ACCESS_EXTEND|NFS3_ACCESS_DELETE|NFS3_ACCESS_LOOKUP); + status = rpc_call_sync(NFS_CLIENT(inode), &msg, 0); nfs_refresh_inode(inode, &fattr); dprintk("NFS reply access\n"); - if (status == 0 && (arg.access & res.access) != arg.access) + if (status == 0 && (access & res.access) != access) status = -EACCES; + + if ((!status || status == -EACCES)) { + cache->mask = 0; + if (res.access & NFS3_ACCESS_READ) + cache->mask |= MAY_READ; + if (res.access & may_write) + cache->mask |= MAY_WRITE; + if (res.access & may_exec) + cache->mask |= MAY_EXEC; + } return status; } ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Access cache forgetting mode bits 2003-09-01 3:22 ` Steve Dickson @ 2003-09-01 3:52 ` Trond Myklebust 2003-09-01 13:13 ` Steve Dickson 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Trond Myklebust @ 2003-09-01 3:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Steve Dickson; +Cc: Andreas Gruenbacher, nfs, Olaf Kirch >>>>> " " == Steve Dickson <SteveD@RedHat.com> writes: >>> Thoughts? What are you using to measure performance here? It would be nice to see some figures to demonstrate the improvement. Cheers, Trond ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ NFS maillist - NFS@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Access cache forgetting mode bits 2003-09-01 3:52 ` Trond Myklebust @ 2003-09-01 13:13 ` Steve Dickson 0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Steve Dickson @ 2003-09-01 13:13 UTC (permalink / raw) To: trond.myklebust; +Cc: Andreas Gruenbacher, nfs, Olaf Kirch [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1290 bytes --] Hi Trond, Trond Myklebust wrote: >What are you using to measure performance here? It would be nice to >see some figures to demonstrate the improvement. > > Good point... If figured the Connectathon test suite (cthon03) would be good since it has a large variety of tests and easy to run... But if there are other tests that would be good just let me know... Running cthon03 three times and using nfsstat to count the total number of rpc and access here are the numbers... Run 1 total calls access calls Original Code: 30230 1755 5% Andreas's Patch: 30181 1676 5% Latest Patch: 29671 1141 3% Run 2 total calls access calls Original Code: 30064 1755 5% Andreas's Patch: 30176 1676 5% Latest Patch: 29978 1141 3% Run 3 total calls access calls Original Code: 30286 1755 5% Andreas's Patch: 29978 1676 5% Latest Patch: 29410 1141 3% Note: It is not a cut/paste error that each test run had the same amount of access calls... the only number that really fluctuated was the number of getattrs.... that's why I only ran the tests three times... not much seem to be changing... I've attached the raw data pruned of the v2 stats... SteveD. [-- Attachment #2: orig --] [-- Type: text/plain, Size: 1770 bytes --] Client rpc stats: calls retrans authrefrsh 30230 15 0 Client nfs v3: null getattr setattr lookup access readlink 0 0% 1587 5% 1199 3% 2428 8% 1755 5% 250 0% read write create mkdir symlink mknod 3976 13% 12304 40% 890 2% 175 0% 250 0% 0 0% remove rmdir rename link readdir readdirplus 1389 4% 175 0% 407 1% 250 0% 0 0% 1121 3% fsstat fsinfo pathconf commit 1500 4% 1 0% 0 0% 573 1% Client rpc stats: calls retrans authrefrsh 30064 28 0 Client nfs v3: null getattr setattr lookup access readlink 0 0% 1493 4% 1199 3% 2362 7% 1755 5% 250 0% read write create mkdir symlink mknod 3976 13% 12304 40% 890 2% 175 0% 250 0% 0 0% remove rmdir rename link readdir readdirplus 1389 4% 175 0% 404 1% 250 0% 0 0% 1121 3% fsstat fsinfo pathconf commit 1500 4% 1 0% 0 0% 570 1% Client rpc stats: calls retrans authrefrsh 30286 24 0 Client nfs v3: null getattr setattr lookup access readlink 0 0% 1520 5% 1199 3% 2554 8% 1755 5% 250 0% read write create mkdir symlink mknod 3976 13% 12304 40% 890 2% 175 0% 250 0% 0 0% remove rmdir rename link readdir readdirplus 1389 4% 175 0% 406 1% 250 0% 0 0% 1121 3% fsstat fsinfo pathconf commit 1500 4% 1 0% 0 0% 571 1% [-- Attachment #3: andreas --] [-- Type: text/plain, Size: 1770 bytes --] Client rpc stats: calls retrans authrefrsh 30181 24 0 Client nfs v3: null getattr setattr lookup access readlink 0 0% 1478 4% 1199 3% 2567 8% 1676 5% 250 0% read write create mkdir symlink mknod 3977 13% 12305 40% 890 2% 175 0% 250 0% 0 0% remove rmdir rename link readdir readdirplus 1389 4% 175 0% 405 1% 250 0% 0 0% 1121 3% fsstat fsinfo pathconf commit 1500 4% 1 0% 0 0% 573 1% Client rpc stats: calls retrans authrefrsh 30176 24 0 Client nfs v3: null getattr setattr lookup access readlink 0 0% 1574 5% 1199 3% 2477 8% 1676 5% 250 0% read write create mkdir symlink mknod 3976 13% 12304 40% 890 2% 175 0% 250 0% 0 0% remove rmdir rename link readdir readdirplus 1389 4% 175 0% 401 1% 250 0% 0 0% 1121 3% fsstat fsinfo pathconf commit 1500 4% 1 0% 0 0% 568 1% Client rpc stats: calls retrans authrefrsh 29978 8 0 Client nfs v3: null getattr setattr lookup access readlink 0 0% 1515 5% 1199 3% 2335 7% 1676 5% 250 0% read write create mkdir symlink mknod 3976 13% 12304 41% 890 2% 175 0% 250 0% 0 0% remove rmdir rename link readdir readdirplus 1389 4% 175 0% 403 1% 250 0% 0 0% 1121 3% fsstat fsinfo pathconf commit 1500 5% 1 0% 0 0% 569 1% [-- Attachment #4: latest --] [-- Type: text/plain, Size: 1770 bytes --] Client rpc stats: calls retrans authrefrsh 29671 9 0 Client nfs v3: null getattr setattr lookup access readlink 0 0% 1644 5% 1199 4% 2432 8% 1141 3% 250 0% read write create mkdir symlink mknod 3976 13% 12304 41% 890 2% 175 0% 250 0% 0 0% remove rmdir rename link readdir readdirplus 1389 4% 175 0% 403 1% 250 0% 0 0% 1121 3% fsstat fsinfo pathconf commit 1500 5% 1 0% 0 0% 571 1% Client rpc stats: calls retrans authrefrsh 29761 10 0 Client nfs v3: null getattr setattr lookup access readlink 0 0% 1682 5% 1199 4% 2484 8% 1141 3% 250 0% read write create mkdir symlink mknod 3976 13% 12303 41% 890 2% 175 0% 250 0% 0 0% remove rmdir rename link readdir readdirplus 1389 4% 175 0% 405 1% 250 0% 0 0% 1121 3% fsstat fsinfo pathconf commit 1500 5% 1 0% 0 0% 570 1% Client rpc stats: calls retrans authrefrsh 29410 23 0 Client nfs v3: null getattr setattr lookup access readlink 0 0% 1492 5% 1199 4% 2318 7% 1141 3% 250 0% read write create mkdir symlink mknod 3976 13% 12304 41% 890 3% 175 0% 250 0% 0 0% remove rmdir rename link readdir readdirplus 1389 4% 175 0% 403 1% 250 0% 0 0% 1121 3% fsstat fsinfo pathconf commit 1500 5% 1 0% 0 0% 576 1% ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2003-09-01 13:14 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 8+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2003-08-28 16:39 [PATCH] Access cache forgetting mode bits Steve Dickson 2003-08-28 21:51 ` Andreas Gruenbacher 2003-08-29 13:14 ` Steve Dickson 2003-08-31 20:33 ` Steve Dickson 2003-08-31 23:25 ` Andreas Gruenbacher 2003-09-01 3:22 ` Steve Dickson 2003-09-01 3:52 ` Trond Myklebust 2003-09-01 13:13 ` Steve Dickson
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.