On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 06:09:05PM +0000, Myklebust, Trond wrote: > On Thu, 2012-09-13 at 13:57 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 04:14:38PM +0000, Adamson, Andy wrote: > > > > > > On Sep 12, 2012, at 11:21 AM, Myklebust, Trond wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, 2012-09-12 at 15:13 +0000, Adamson, Andy wrote: > > > >> After doing more test verification, here are the reasons for the low watermark. Reason #2 is the strongest justification. > > > > 1 and 2 don't sound right. What exactly were the test failures? > > > > The client and server's gss code already check the context expiry for > > us--we don't want an extra check in an upper layer on the client. > > > > The context *will* expire unexpectedly sometimes, and we do have to > > handle that. (The server's clock could be a tad faster than the > > server's, or the server could reboot, etc., etc.) > > > > I agree with all the suggestions for trying to anticipate expiry in the > > normal cases and preparing to minimize the damage, that's fine. But > > once the expiry finally comes we should leave the existing mechanisms to > > do their job. > > Right, but the problem that the existing mechanisms have is that due to > asynchronous reads and writes, the application can end up eating > sizeable chunks of memory. It can also end up grabbing locks without > being able to free them afterwards. > > SP4_MACH_CRED solves most of these issues, but NFSv4.1 is less pervasive > than NFSv4 at this point, so it would be nice to have a solution for the > latter too. Yep, understood. --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
