On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 10:07:07PM +0000, Trond Myklebust wrote: > On Thu, 2017-04-27 at 18:03 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 11:54:48AM +0800, Kinglong Mee wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 4/27/2017 11:24, Trond Myklebust wrote: > > > > On Thu, 2017-04-27 at 11:06 +0800, Kinglong Mee wrote: > > > > > > > > > > There is only one use of svc_set_num_threads that by nfsd, > > > > > I'd like to change svc_set_num_threads and update nfsd than add > > > > > a new > > > > > function. > > > > > > > > You can't really combine the two methods. Either you choose > > > > signals or > > > > you choose kthread_stop(). The problem is that signals require > > > > the > > > > thread to be able to persist past the nfsd_destroy() (which again > > > > forces things like nfsd() having to take nfsd_mutex), or you have > > > > to > > > > make things synchronous, in which case having nfsd() try to take > > > > nfsd_mutex causes deadlocks. > > > > > > > > IOW: if there is legacy behaviour here that requires the signal > > > > method, > > > > then knfsd cannot be converted. > > > > > > Got it. > > > > > > Tested-and-reviewed-by: Kinglong Mee <kinglongmee@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > So does what I have in git://linux-nfs.org/~bfields/linux.git nfsd- > > next > > look correct? > > > > (Alternatively, if Trond's taking this through his tree, that's fine > > too, feel free to add my ACK.) > > > If you've already got it queued up then I'm fine with that. I have it > in my "testing" branch (which passes ☺) but haven't yet moved it into > linux-next. OK, I'll take it. --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
