xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: 2.6.24-rc2 XFS nfsd hang

To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: 2.6.24-rc2 XFS nfsd hang
From: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 14:03:50 -0500
Cc: Chris Wedgwood <cw@xxxxxxxx>, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, LKML <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <20071121150746.GB8454@infradead.org>
References: <20071114070400.GA25708@puku.stupidest.org> <20071114152952.GA4210@infradead.org> <20071114173922.GC14254@fieldses.org> <20071114174419.GA15271@infradead.org> <20071114175322.GD14254@fieldses.org> <20071114180241.GA16656@infradead.org> <20071114180838.GE14254@fieldses.org> <20071121150746.GB8454@infradead.org>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01)
On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 03:07:46PM +0000, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 01:08:38PM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > > Personally I'd prefer it to only grow a struct stat or rather it's members
> > > But the nfsd code currently expects a dentry so this might require some
> > > major refactoring.
> > 
> > Well, we need to check for mountpoints, for example, so I don't see any
> > way out of needing a dentry.  What's the drawback?
> 
> You're right - we'd probably need the dentry.  The drawback is that
> we need to always get it in the dcache.  Which might be a good thing
> depending on the workload.

In any case, if the new api were only used by nfsd for now, then there'd
be no change here.

Seems like it might be worth a try.

--b.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>