On Fri, 2025-02-21 at 10:39 -0500, Chuck Lever wrote: > On 2/21/25 10:02 AM, Mike Snitzer wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 20, 2025 at 01:17:42PM -0500, Chuck Lever wrote: > > > * It might be argued that putting these experimental tunables under /sys > > > eliminates the support longevity question, since there aren't strict > > > rules about removing files under /sys. > > > > Right, I do think a sysfs knob (that defaults to disabled, requires > > user opt-in) is a pretty useful and benign means to expose > > experimental functionality. > > Seems like we want to figure out a blessed way to add this kind of > experimental "hidden" tunable in a way that can be easily removed > once we have the answers we need. > > I'd really like to keep the documented administrative interface as > straightforward as possible, but I agree that having a way to > experiment is valuable. > We do have this fancy new netlink interface that is extensible. You could extend the "threads" call to add a server-wide boolean for this and then extend nfsdctl to set that value in some cases. -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
