Christoph Hellwig
2014-09-26 14:02:49 UTC
The rpc_pipefs pattern used for the GETDEVICEINFO implementation in the
blocklayout driver is fundamentally not thread safe. Workloads like
dbench manage to trigger concurrent GETDEVICEINFO calls though, so we
need to add a critical section around it.
I also wonder if we should avoid even sending multiple GETDEVICEINFO
a a higher level in the NFS client, as =D1=95ending multiple request ju=
st
to cancel out their action before adding them to the cache doesn't
seem very helpful.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo-***@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
blocklayout driver is fundamentally not thread safe. Workloads like
dbench manage to trigger concurrent GETDEVICEINFO calls though, so we
need to add a critical section around it.
I also wonder if we should avoid even sending multiple GETDEVICEINFO
a a higher level in the NFS client, as =D1=95ending multiple request ju=
st
to cancel out their action before adding them to the cache doesn't
seem very helpful.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo-***@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html