On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 2:50 AM, Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 09/12/2010 09:42 PM, Trond Myklebust wrote:
>> On Sun, 2010-09-12 at 19:03 +0200, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
>>> Current code thinks that there can be a single device_id per
>>> layout segment. Change that to assume no relations between segments
>>> and device_ids. It's now up to the layout-driver to make any relations.
>>>
>>> Files layout driver is fixed in next patch.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> fs/nfs/pnfs.c | 20 +++++---------------
>>> include/linux/nfs4_pnfs.h | 6 +-----
>>> 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/fs/nfs/pnfs.c b/fs/nfs/pnfs.c
>>> index eb4e092..f26abc0 100644
>>> --- a/fs/nfs/pnfs.c
>>> +++ b/fs/nfs/pnfs.c
>>> @@ -1892,26 +1892,16 @@ nfs4_init_deviceid_node(struct nfs4_deviceid *d)
>>> }
>>> EXPORT_SYMBOL(nfs4_init_deviceid_node);
>>>
>>> -/* Called from layoutdriver_io_operations->alloc_lseg */
>>> -void
>>> -nfs4_set_layout_deviceid(struct pnfs_layout_segment *l, struct nfs4_deviceid *d)
>>> -{
>>> - dprintk("%s [%d]\n", __func__, atomic_read(&d->de_kref.refcount));
>>> - l->deviceid = d;
>>> -}
>>> -EXPORT_SYMBOL(nfs4_set_layout_deviceid);
>>> -
>>> /* Called from layoutdriver_io_operations->free_lseg */
>>> void
>>> -nfs4_put_unset_layout_deviceid(struct pnfs_layout_segment *l,
>>> - struct nfs4_deviceid *d,
>>> - void (*free_callback)(struct kref *))
>>> +nfs4_put_deviceid(struct nfs4_deviceid_cache *c,
>>> + struct nfs4_deviceid *d)
>>> {
>>> dprintk("%s [%d]\n", __func__, atomic_read(&d->de_kref.refcount));
>>> - l->deviceid = NULL;
>>> - kref_put(&d->de_kref, free_callback);
>>> + kref_put(&d->de_kref, c->dc_free_callback);
>>> + /* Do we need to return the deviceid_cache ref */
>>> }
>>> -EXPORT_SYMBOL(nfs4_put_unset_layout_deviceid);
>>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(nfs4_put_deviceid);
>>>
>>> /* Find and reference a deviceid */
>>> struct nfs4_deviceid *
>>> diff --git a/include/linux/nfs4_pnfs.h b/include/linux/nfs4_pnfs.h
>>> index 577cd2b..dc3410e 100644
>>> --- a/include/linux/nfs4_pnfs.h
>>> +++ b/include/linux/nfs4_pnfs.h
>>> @@ -111,7 +111,6 @@ struct pnfs_layout_segment {
>>> struct kref kref;
>>> bool valid;
>>> struct pnfs_layout_hdr *layout;
>>> - struct nfs4_deviceid *deviceid;
>>> u8 ld_data[]; /* layout driver private data */
>>> };
>>>
>>> @@ -287,11 +286,8 @@ extern struct nfs4_deviceid *nfs4_find_get_deviceid(
>>> struct pnfs_deviceid *);
>>> extern struct nfs4_deviceid *nfs4_add_get_deviceid(struct nfs4_deviceid_cache *,
>>> struct nfs4_deviceid *);
>>> -extern void nfs4_set_layout_deviceid(struct pnfs_layout_segment *,
>>> +extern void nfs4_put_deviceid(struct nfs4_deviceid_cache *,
>>> struct nfs4_deviceid *);
>>> -extern void nfs4_put_unset_layout_deviceid(struct pnfs_layout_segment *,
>>> - struct nfs4_deviceid *,
>>> - void (*free_callback)(struct kref *));
>>> extern void nfs4_delete_device(struct nfs4_deviceid_cache *,
>>> struct pnfs_deviceid *);
>>>
>>
>> This doesn't look like it needs to be part of the initial single-layout
>> submission. Why is it being labelled as a squashme?
>>
>> Trond
>
> No, this is a device_id cache per nfs-client it is part of the initial
> getdeviceinfo call. Many "single-layout" may refer to the same device_id
> therefor it is cached so the long getdeviceinfo call can be done only once.
>
> Cheers
> Boaz
> --
> 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
>
I agree. I'll roll it into the next submission.
Fred
--
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
