On 2011-06-17 08:59, 于浩 wrote: > Thanks for you reply. > >> What server are you testing? >> Does the layouts it provides marked with return_on_close? > Yes, the pnfs I am using is "pnfs-all-2.6.38-2011-03-25 <http://git.linux-nfs.org/?p=bhalevy/linux-pnfs.git;a=tag;h=refs/tags/pnfs-all-2.6.38-2011-03-25>"downloaded > from "git://git.linux-nfs.org/projects/bhalevy/linux-pnfs.git". > >> If so, I pulled a patch from Boaz into pnfs-all-2.6.39 for automatically cleaning up >> return_on_close layouts on the server side after a forgetful client closes the file >> without returning them. > Could you send the patch to me? thank you ! That would be http://git.linux-nfs.org/?p=bhalevy/linux-pnfs.git;a=patch;h=05f980b9dc76a1d12c3774378ceb8ade1e1d4f91 Thanks, Benny > Looking forward to your reply. > > Regards, > Steven. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >> Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 11:28:30 -0400 >> From: bhalevy@xxxxxxxxxxx >> To: haohaoweixiao@xxxxxxxxxxx >> CC: linux-nfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> Subject: Re: In the linux-all-2.6.38 of pnfs, why was pnfs_return_layout removed ? >> >> Steven, the call was removed to accommodate for the "forgetful client" model >> where the client drops its layout unilaterally and the server is supposed >> to clean up the client layout on its side. >> >> We are bringing it back, correctly, with proper synchronization, in Linux 3.0 >> in so that the layout will be returned in nfs_evict_inode. >> >> What server are you testing? >> Does the layouts it provides marked with return_on_close? >> If so, I pulled a patch from Boaz into pnfs-all-2.6.39 for automatically cleaning up >> return_on_close layouts on the server side after a forgetful client closes the file >> without returning them. >> >> Benny >> >> On 2011-06-16 10:52, 于浩 wrote: >> > >> > Dear All, >> > Dear All, >> > I got one problem when testing the read performance of linux-all-2.6.38. I found that the speed was becoming slower with time.(300MB/s-->50MB/s). Finally,I found the cause of the problem. In __nfs4_close(), the "LAYOUT RETURN" operation was removed. So the size of "layout_hash" becomes bigger and bigger on the pnfs server side. Then more time is spent on searching in __layout_inode_find() function. I wonder why the pnfs_return_layout() in __nfs4_close() was removed ?? >> > >> > Regards, >> > Steven. >> > >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > SQUASHME: pnfs: revert layout recall/get/return synchronization >> > authorBenny Halevy <bhalevy@xxxxxxxxxxx> >> > Thu, 24 Feb 2011 02:53:46 +0000 (18:53 -0800) >> > committerBenny Halevy <bhalevy@xxxxxxxxxxx> >> > Fri, 25 Mar 2011 08:25:57 +0000 (10:25 +0200) >> > >> > For now, revert code attempting a "forget-less" client model to match >> > the pnfs-submit-wave4 forgetful model implementation in preparation >> > for porting the tree onto it. >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Benny Halevy bhalevy@xxxxxxxxxxx >> > >> > -- >> > 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 -- Benny Halevy CTO, Tonian Inc. Tel: +972-54-802-8340 benny@xxxxxxxxxx -- 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
