On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 10:14:56AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 07:30:08PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > > One thing that might be good to do though is to create a dedicated > > slabcache for these objects. On a pnfs-enabled server, you might end up > > with quite a few of them, so packing them efficiently is probably a good > > thing to do. That's just a refinement though and could be done in a > > later patch. > > Also currently we allocate them for any 4.1 server. Now that I think about > it we should at least make it conditional on CONFIG_NFSD_PNFS, or even > better find a runtime check. > > > > (Also: does this need to go to stable? If we're potentially leaving > > > layouts around forever, this sounds pretty serious.) > > We're always returning them on file close, so we're not leaking anything. > The common case is that we actually return them too early when we close > the file but still have an outstanding delegation. Oh, got it, thanks. > I'm ok with a cc to stable, but it's a bit borderline. Note that currently > you even applied my two patches to your 4.2 incoming queue, not even 4.1.. Yeah, those -incoming branches are random works-in-progress and will get rebased frequently, I'll move the other to for-4.1 and leave this one for 4.2. --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
