On Fri, Oct 01, 2010 at 08:40:36AM -0700, Marc Eshel wrote: > On 10/1/2010 5:33 AM, Benny Halevy wrote: > >On 2010-10-01 10:47, Boaz Harrosh wrote: > >>On 10/01/2010 08:12 AM, Tigran Mkrtchyan wrote: > >>> On 10/01/2010 06:17 AM, Marc Eshel wrote: > >>>>Hi Benny, > >>>> > >>>>Running connectathon I see that some times the clients decides to destroy > >>>>the session with the DS. The test continue and the session is > >>>>re-established. It looks like layout return reduces the hold on device > >>>>info the reduces the hold on the client struct which decide to destroy the > >>>>session. Is that a known problem? > >>>> > >>Yes, I want to emphasize on Marks words: "a known *problem*" > >Marc, assuming the code behaves as expected, does this cause any other badness > >like the GETATTRs you see going out to the DS? > > > >Benny > > > > No i don't see any "badness" the test continues without errors and > this problem is not related to the GETATTRs I see on the DS but I > would consider destroying the session in short run of couple of > minutes some times more than one time as something bad. Why? I wouldn't expect session destruction/creation to be *that* expensive. --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
