On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 12:06:53 -0500 "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I still haven't looked at the code yet. Probably the first thing I'd > check would whether the previous code depends on an assumption that each > grant request results in revisit of exactly one rpc. I can't see a > problem. > That's the case with the existing code, since it stops looking for blocks once it finds a match. The patch I sent changes nlmsvc_grant_deferred to walk the entire list and set up matching blocks to be granted. I think at that point, lockd will rewalk the list (via nlmsvc_retry_blocked) and revisit each one that got moved to the head of the list. Please correct me if I'm wrong here though. This code has a lot of indirection and I'm not sure I fully understand the way revisits work. As a side note, one thing that might be nice for this is to have nlmsvc_grant_deferred to only walk the list of blocks that is associated with this file. nlm_blocked is an ordered list though, so I'm not sure whether this might have an effect on "fairness" when several hosts or processes are contending for the same range. -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
