On Tue, Jun 07, 2022 at 01:10:36PM -0700, Leah Rumancik wrote:
> From: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> [ Upstream commit 555dbf1a9aac6d3150c8b52fa35f768a692f4eeb ]
>
> The nfsd_file nf_rwsem is currently being used to separate file write
> and commit instances to ensure that we catch errors and apply them to
> the correct write/commit.
> We can improve scalability at the expense of a little accuracy (some
> extra false positives) by replacing the nf_rwsem with more careful
> use of the errseq_t mechanism to track errors across the different
> operations.
>
> [Leah: This patch is for 5.10. 5011af4c698a ("nfsd: Fix stable writes")
> introduced a 75% performance regression on parallel random write
> workloads. With this commit, the performance is restored to 90% of what
> it was prior to 5011af4c698a. The changes to the fsync for asynchronous
> copies were not included in this backport version as the fsync was not
> added until 5.14 (eac0b17a77fb).]
>
> Signed-off-by: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Leah Rumancik <leah.rumancik@xxxxxxxxx>
> [ cel: rebased on zero-verifier fix ]
> ---
> fs/nfsd/filecache.c | 1 -
> fs/nfsd/filecache.h | 1 -
> fs/nfsd/nfs4proc.c | 7 ++++---
> fs/nfsd/vfs.c | 40 +++++++++++++++-------------------------
> 4 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
What about 5.15? We can't take this patch for 5.10 only as if you
upgrade to 5.15 you would have a regression. Can you provide a version
for that tree so that I can then apply this one too?
thanks,
greg k-h
