>> My starting guess is that there is some task on that client that has dirtied the pages of one of the files in the directory you are trying to list. A GETATTR is required to flush outstanding writes to a file so the server can provide size and mtime attributes that reflect the last most recent write to that file. >> >> Possible work-arounds: You can reduce the dirty_ratio setting on the client to force it to starting flushing outstanding writes sooner, you can change the writing applications to use synchronous writes (or flush manually), or you can alter your "ls" command so that it doesn't require a GETATTR for each file. >> OK, I think I understand that if I've dirtied the pages on a file and then issue a stat against it, that the NFS Client will stall my stat until it flushes cache. And I'm focused on the work-around of: "You can reduce the dirty_ratio setting ..." (a) Does the stat /trigger/ a cache flush? Or does the stat have to wait for the usual mechanisms to initiate a flush? (b) How granular is this process? Will the NFS Client issue my stat (GETATTR) once all the dirty pages relevant to my particular file are flushed (but other pages are still being written)? Or does the NFS Client wait until pdflush has entirely emptied cache before proceeding with the stat? (c) When cache hits dirty_ratio (or dirty_bytes), I believe the kernel blocks /all/ writers until it has /emptied/ cache (and flushing a big cache to slow storage can take a while) ... am I correct? (d) If my load is dominated by large writes over NFS, does cache buy me anything? Seems to me that the dominant benefit of cache is elevatoring ... the block structure of storage accessible via NFS is opaque ... thus, there's nothing write cache can do to increase the performance of the write ... it may as well hand off the blocks in any old order to the NFS server and let the storage's cache worry about sequencing the blocks. ==> Seems to me that shrinking dirty_xxx to something really low ... like 100K ... would: (1) maximize 'stat' performance during heavy writes (2) leave NFS write performance unaffected but I can tell that I'm missing something here (because when I try it, interactive performance, i.e. 'ls -l', tanks). What am I not understanding? --sk -- 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
