On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 07:55:36PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > Looking back at that commit--I'm now confused about how it was meant to > work. In the case where the woken-up thread is waiting inside of > svc_recv(), ->nwaking doesn't get decremented at all until the request > is processed and svc_recv() is called again--effectively limiting the > number of concurrent requests to 5 per pool, so, if I read the code > correctly, likely to cause problems if your workload would benefit from > lots of requests being able to wait on io simultaneously (e.g. if you > have a large working set and more than 5 spindles per pool). Yes, this box is serving about 50 TB of storage space, so there are more than 5 spindles. :) I can't believe others aren't all complaining about the same problem, but I guess the loads are different. > I'm inclined to revert the patch and take another look at Greg's > original problem. I'm inclined to be totally happy with that! :) Simon- -- 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
