On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 08:01:40PM +0200, Benny Halevy wrote: > On Dec. 22, 2008, 19:11 +0200, "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 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, 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. -- 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
