On 2013-09-29 15:19, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 02:42:48PM -0400, Benny Halevy wrote: >> we don't want to hold the state_lock while the file system may block > > Needs a much beter changelog: > > - why don't you want to hold it > - why you think the new version is safe and performs fine. OK. So the reason not to hold it is that the nfs state lock is global to the server and blocks all state modifying operations such as: open, close, lock, clientid, session operations, etc. It is safe to release the state lock from the pnfs call sites on the resource dereferencing path as: a. The file system is not expected to recurs back into the knfsd code while holding the state lock. b. The high level operation is already done at this point and it is not required to hold the state lock any further. Note that there are more call sites of put_nfs4_file in nfs4state.c that need further analysis and move to put_nfs4_file_locked where possible. Benny > > -- > 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 > -- 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
