On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 11:54:56AM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
> On 03 Jun 2013 16:27:06 +0200 Bodo Stroesser <bstroesser@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 06:56:00PM +0200, Bodo Stroesser wrote:
> > >
> > > We started the test of the -SP2 (and mainline) series on Tue, 9th, but had no
> > > success.
> > > We did _not_ find a problem with the patches, but under -SP2 our test scenario
> > > has less than 40% of the throughput we saw under -SP1. With that low
> > > performance, we had a 4 day run without any dropped RPC request. But we don't
> > > know the error rate without the patches under these conditions. So we can't
> > > give an o.k. for the patches yet.
> > >
> > > Currently we try to find the reason for the different behavior of SP1 and SP2
> > >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > sorry for the delay. Meanwhile we found the reason for the small throughput
> > with -SP2. The problem resulted from a change in our own software.
> >
> > Thus I could fix this and started a test on last Tuesday. I stopped the test
> > today after 6 days without any lost RPC. Without the patches I saw the first
> > dropped RPC after 3 hours. Thus, I think the patches for -SP2 are fine.
> >
> > @Neil: would patch 0006 of the -SP1 patchset be a good additional change for
> > mainline?
> >
> > Bodo
>
> Thanks for all the testing.
>
> Bruce: where are you at with these? Are you holding one to some that I sent
> previously, or should I resend them all?
No, I'm not holding on to any--if you could resend them all that would
be great.
--b.
>
>
> Bodo: no, I don't think that patch is appropriate for mainline. It causes
> sunrpc_cache_pipe_upcall to abort if ->expiry_time is zero. There is
> certainly no point in doing an upcall in that case, but the code in mainline
> is quite different to the code in -SP1 against which that patch made sense.
>
> For mainline an equivalent optimisation which probably makes the interesting
> case more obvious would be:
>
> diff --git a/net/sunrpc/cache.c b/net/sunrpc/cache.c
> index d01eb07..291cc47 100644
> --- a/net/sunrpc/cache.c
> +++ b/net/sunrpc/cache.c
> @@ -262,7 +262,8 @@ int cache_check(struct cache_detail *detail,
> if (rqstp == NULL) {
> if (rv == -EAGAIN)
> rv = -ENOENT;
> - } else if (rv == -EAGAIN || age > refresh_age/2) {
> + } else if (rv == -EAGAIN ||
> + (refresh_age > 0 && age > refresh_age/2)) {
> dprintk("RPC: Want update, refage=%ld, age=%ld\n",
> refresh_age, age);
> if (!test_and_set_bit(CACHE_PENDING, &h->flags)) {
>
>
> i.e. trap that case in cache_check.
>
> NeilBrown
--
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
