RE: making the mountpoints visible all the time (fwd)

RE: making the mountpoints visible all the time (fwd)

[Chris Croswhite]

I can offer up about 75 Linux boxes as testing.  They are used pretty heavily mounting about 300-400 differnet mount points during the day from slowlaris, HPsUx, Linux and NetApp file systems.  Just let me know.

TIA,
Chris


-----Original Message-----
From:	Ian Kent [mailto:raven@themaw.net]
Sent:	Sun 16-Nov-03 18:53
To:	Alexander Macdonald
Cc:	autofs@linux.kernel.org
Subject:	Re: [autofs] making the mountpoints visible all the time (fwd)
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003, Alexander Macdonald wrote:

> I'm happy to try out any patches, although I'm only using autofs for
> about 20 or so samba and nfs shares on a few pcs so it wont exactly be
> thorough enterprise level testing :)
>
> >In fact, I don't have a 2.6 environment other than what I use to test at
> >home so volenteers are needed for testing. We can't expect the changes
> >to be accepted without some testing other than my simple setup.
> >
> >

Any help is appreciated.

I'll let you know when I've got something to test.

Thanks.

-- 

   ,-._|\    Ian Kent
  /      \   Perth, Western Australia
  *_.--._/   E-mail: raven@themaw.net
        v    Web: http://themaw.net/

_______________________________________________
autofs mailing list
autofs@linux.kernel.org
http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/autofs

RE: making the mountpoints visible all the time (fwd)

[Ian Kent]

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003, Chris Croswhite wrote:

> I can offer up about 75 Linux boxes as testing.  They are used pretty heavily mounting about 300-400 differnet mount points during the day from slowlaris, HPsUx, Linux and NetApp file systems.  Just let me know.
>

Will do.

This is for testing my 2.6 patch when it's done. Yes?


-- 

   ,-._|\    Ian Kent
  /      \   Perth, Western Australia
  *_.--._/   E-mail: raven@themaw.net
        v    Web: http://themaw.net/

RE: making the mountpoints visible all the time (fwd)

[Ian Kent]

Hi guys,

I have some 2.6 patches.

They can be found at 

http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/raven/autofs4-2.6

Apply them in number order please.

Please leave out the max_anon_2.patch initially. We need to establish what 
the status of the kernel module is before trying this patch. It was 
written by Mike Waychison to increase the number of anonymous devices. 
Once the status patches is established it would be good to how the 
max_anon patch goes with over 255 mounts and less than about 790 (rpc 
doesn't allow more than that at the moment).

Try as many or as few things as your setup allows and please try and give 
some coverage of what was used and what went wrong. We need to try this on 
SMP setups if at all possible.

I know I don't need to say this to ypu guys but I will anyway. Please make 
sure that you do staged testing. What I'm saying is steady as it goes. 
First a single machine then a couple etc., you know the routine. While the 
general approach of the patches is the same as what I have used for ages 
in 2.4 the locking and synchronisation is different and may not be 
correct (read I think it's not quite right but need evidence to confirm 
it).

Looking forward to your feedback.

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003, Chris Croswhite wrote:

> I can offer up about 75 Linux boxes as testing.  They are used pretty heavily mounting about 300-400 differnet mount points during the day from slowlaris, HPsUx, Linux and NetApp file systems.  Just let me know.
> 
> TIA,
> Chris
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Ian Kent [mailto:raven@themaw.net]
> Sent:	Sun 16-Nov-03 18:53
> To:	Alexander Macdonald
> Cc:	autofs@linux.kernel.org
> Subject:	Re: [autofs] making the mountpoints visible all the time (fwd)
> On Sun, 16 Nov 2003, Alexander Macdonald wrote:
> 
> > I'm happy to try out any patches, although I'm only using autofs for
> > about 20 or so samba and nfs shares on a few pcs so it wont exactly be
> > thorough enterprise level testing :)
> >
> > >In fact, I don't have a 2.6 environment other than what I use to test at
> > >home so volenteers are needed for testing. We can't expect the changes
> > >to be accepted without some testing other than my simple setup.
> > >
> > >
> 
> Any help is appreciated.
> 
> I'll let you know when I've got something to test.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 

-- 

   ,-._|\    Ian Kent
  /      \   Perth, Western Australia
  *_.--._/   E-mail: raven@themaw.net
        v    Web: http://themaw.net/

Re: 2.6 patches broken with 2.6.4

[Alexander Macdonald]

The patches have applied cleanly to all kernels up to now, however the second 
patch (and maybe more, didn't try them since there wasn't any point) won't apply 
cleanly to kernel 2.6.4.

I don't know about anybody else's experience with these patches but I haven't 
had any trouble with them at all, maybe you should send them to Andrew Morton 
for inclusion in the -mm branch, That'd save me some patching time for each 
kernel ;)


Keep up the good work!
Alex


Ian Kent wrote:
> Hi guys,
> 
> I have some 2.6 patches.
> 
> They can be found at 
> 
> http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/raven/autofs4-2.6
> 
> Apply them in number order please.
> 
> Please leave out the max_anon_2.patch initially. We need to establish what 
> the status of the kernel module is before trying this patch. It was 
> written by Mike Waychison to increase the number of anonymous devices. 
> Once the status patches is established it would be good to how the 
> max_anon patch goes with over 255 mounts and less than about 790 (rpc 
> doesn't allow more than that at the moment).
> 
> Try as many or as few things as your setup allows and please try and give 
> some coverage of what was used and what went wrong. We need to try this on 
> SMP setups if at all possible.
> 
> I know I don't need to say this to ypu guys but I will anyway. Please make 
> sure that you do staged testing. What I'm saying is steady as it goes. 
> First a single machine then a couple etc., you know the routine. While the 
> general approach of the patches is the same as what I have used for ages 
> in 2.4 the locking and synchronisation is different and may not be 
> correct (read I think it's not quite right but need evidence to confirm 
> it).
> 
> Looking forward to your feedback.
> 
> On Sun, 16 Nov 2003, Chris Croswhite wrote:
> 
> 
>>I can offer up about 75 Linux boxes as testing.  They are used pretty heavily mounting about 300-400 differnet mount points during the day from slowlaris, HPsUx, Linux and NetApp file systems.  Just let me know.
>>
>>TIA,
>>Chris
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From:	Ian Kent [mailto:raven@themaw.net]
>>Sent:	Sun 16-Nov-03 18:53
>>To:	Alexander Macdonald
>>Cc:	autofs@linux.kernel.org
>>Subject:	Re: [autofs] making the mountpoints visible all the time (fwd)
>>On Sun, 16 Nov 2003, Alexander Macdonald wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I'm happy to try out any patches, although I'm only using autofs for
>>>about 20 or so samba and nfs shares on a few pcs so it wont exactly be
>>>thorough enterprise level testing :)
>>>
>>>
>>>>In fact, I don't have a 2.6 environment other than what I use to test at
>>>>home so volenteers are needed for testing. We can't expect the changes
>>>>to be accepted without some testing other than my simple setup.
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>Any help is appreciated.
>>
>>I'll let you know when I've got something to test.
>>
>>Thanks.
>>
>>
> 
> 

Re: 2.6 patches broken with 2.6.4

[Ian Kent]

On Thu, 11 Mar 2004, Alexander Macdonald wrote:

> The patches have applied cleanly to all kernels up to now, however the second 
> patch (and maybe more, didn't try them since there wasn't any point) won't apply 
> cleanly to kernel 2.6.4.

I'll look into it this weekend.

> 
> I don't know about anybody else's experience with these patches but I haven't 
> had any trouble with them at all, maybe you should send them to Andrew Morton 
> for inclusion in the -mm branch, That'd save me some patching time for each 
> kernel ;)

Thanks for the feedback. How long and in what environment have you been 
using them.

I've done that some time ago. As far as I knon he hasn't included them 
yet.

I've been wanting to revise the wait queue locking anyway as I'm sure 
it's open to a race.

Ian

Re: [autofs] 2.6 patches broken with 2.6.4

[Ian Kent]

On Thu, 11 Mar 2004, Alexander Macdonald wrote:

> The patches have applied cleanly to all kernels up to now, however the second 
> patch (and maybe more, didn't try them since there wasn't any point) won't apply 
> cleanly to kernel 2.6.4.

I'll look into it this weekend.

> 
> I don't know about anybody else's experience with these patches but I haven't 
> had any trouble with them at all, maybe you should send them to Andrew Morton 
> for inclusion in the -mm branch, That'd save me some patching time for each 
> kernel ;)

Thanks for the feedback. How long and in what environment have you been 
using them.

I've done that some time ago. As far as I knon he hasn't included them 
yet.

I've been wanting to revise the wait queue locking anyway as I'm sure 
it's open to a race.

Ian

Re: 2.6 patches broken with 2.6.4

[Alexander Macdonald]

Ian Kent wrote:
> Thanks for the feedback. How long and in what environment have you been 
> using them.


Well admittedly my testing has been with only a few pc's each with about 4-5 
shares, none of them SMP boxes. So not at all thorough or stressful compared to 
what some people on the list are using it for.

Alex

Re: 2.6 patches broken with 2.6.4

[Ian Kent]

On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, Alexander Macdonald wrote:

> Ian Kent wrote:
> > Thanks for the feedback. How long and in what environment have you been 
> > using them.
> 
> 
> Well admittedly my testing has been with only a few pc's each with about 4-5 
> shares, none of them SMP boxes. So not at all thorough or stressful compared to 
> what some people on the list are using it for.
> 

Better than nothing.

Try this patch for 2.6.4

--- linux-2.6.4.orig/fs/autofs4/inode.c	Thu Mar 11 10:55:37 2004
+++ linux-2.6.4/fs/autofs4/inode.c	Fri Mar 12 10:54:23 2004
@@ -187,6 +187,7 @@
 	struct file * pipe;
 	int pipefd;
 	struct autofs_sb_info *sbi;
+	struct autofs_info *ino;
 	int minproto, maxproto;
 
 	sbi = (struct autofs_sb_info *) kmalloc(sizeof(*sbi), GFP_KERNEL);
@@ -212,7 +213,11 @@
 	/*
 	 * Get the root inode and dentry, but defer checking for errors.
 	 */
-	root_inode = autofs4_get_inode(s, autofs4_mkroot(sbi));
+	ino = autofs4_mkroot(sbi);
+	if (!ino)
+		goto fail_free;
+	root_inode = autofs4_get_inode(s, ino);
+	kfree(ino);
 	if (!root_inode)
 		goto fail_free;

Re: [autofs] 2.6 patches broken with 2.6.4

[Ian Kent]

Hi Andrew,

My updated autofs4 patches for 2.6 are located at:

http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/raven/autofs4-2.6/2.6.4

They also apply OK to the recent 2.6.5 release.

I asked Peter Anvin to review them but it appears he doesn't have time 
atm.

On Mon, 15 Mar 2004, Andrew Morton wrote:

> > Please don't spend much time checking the patches I described in my last 
> > mail. I've just started reviewing them and can see there is quite a bit 
> > more I can do to break them up in the way you have recommened. It will 
> > take a couple of days.
> > 
> 
> I started to look at them a bit.  They seem reasonable from a first pass. 
> We'll need to go through them carefully.

Please do. I'm keen to get feedback on errors and comments for 
improvement.

> 
> Time spent commenting the code and explaining the rationale behind the
> changes (in a form suitable for the final changelog) is always well spent.
> 

All that I've done is to add a description and purpose to the begining of 
each patch. I thought the code was fairly readable and mostly obvious. 
Please let me know if you find this is not the case and I will add 
comments where recommended. So don't waste time trying to work stuff out 
if its not clear, just get in touch.

Ian