From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "J. Bruce Fields" Subject: Re: 2.6.29, holidays Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 17:59:04 -0500 Message-ID: <20090202225904.GF13389@fieldses.org> References: <20081222171124.GL4191@fieldses.org> <494FD604.6020502@panasas.com> <20090202225805.GE13389@fieldses.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, nfsv4@linux-nfs.org To: Benny Halevy Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20090202225805.GE13389@fieldses.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: nfsv4-bounces@linux-nfs.org Errors-To: nfsv4-bounces@linux-nfs.org List-ID: On Mon, Feb 02, 2009 at 05:58:05PM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 08:01:40PM +0200, Benny Halevy wrote: > > On Dec. 22, 2008, 19:11 +0200, "J. Bruce Fields" wrote: > > > I'm leaving town till the new year. It's likely 2.6.28 will be released > > > (and the 2.6.29 merge window open) on Christmas, though the merge window > > > will be extended to take into account the holidays: > > > > > > http://lwn.net/Articles/312154/ > > > > > > I'll be online at least part of the time, and review outstanding patches > > > from Chuck and Benny (and hopefully Steved's export patches). If you > > > have other server stuff pending for 2.6.29, please remind me. > > > > Hi Bruce, > > > > First, enjoy your vacation! > > Regarding 2.6.29, how about the following patch from Alexandros? > > http://git.linux-nfs.org/?p=bhalevy/linux-pnfs.git;a=commitdiff;h=35bbe2824b991e14877e7ceb6a36f91e2ea78226 > > I haven't sent it to you for 2.6.29 but I believe it's a good opportunity > > to get it in. > > Thanks, a little late, (By which I mean, I'm a little late, obviously your mail wasn't.) --b. > but I've applied that.... > > I also spent some time trying to figure out what to do about the nfs4 > server's locking. The scope of the state lock is a problem, mainly > because (at least for me) it's hard to understand what it's protecting > at this point. And of course I worry about performance: I haven't tried > to measure lock contention, but it can't be good that the same lock that > can be held over disk access (read/write code isn't under it, but lots > of lookups and creates are) is also used for simple hash-table lookups. > > I got as far as looking at nfsd4_open() and despaired. > > A global spinlock or two for the various hash tables, together with a > semaphore for each stateowner, to serialize the stateid replay stuff, > might do the job. > > Anyway, I committed some very minor cleanup of the open code--you can > see it at for-2.6.30, if anyone's interested, but didn't get any > further. > > --b. > _______________________________________________ > NFSv4 mailing list > NFSv4@linux-nfs.org > http://linux-nfs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4