[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1204919978.16746.12.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org>
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2008 14:59:37 -0500
From: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@....uio.no>
To: Kyle Rose <krose@...se.org>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: READDIRPLUS max mount option
On Fri, 2008-03-07 at 14:37 -0500, Kyle Rose wrote:
> I have a very specific use for an NFS mount over a WAN, and allowing for
> much larger expected READDIRPLUS requests actually improves performance
> by at least a factor of 10 by eliminating the round-trip latency that
> results from the application's single-threaded
> readdir/stat/stat/stat/... behavior. Rather than maintain a hacked
> kernel on my end, I'd rather the READDIRPLUS limit be a mount option.
> Hence, the following patch. It defaults to the old behavior
> (8*PAGE_SIZE), but with a properly-prepared mount binary will allow the
> client to specify a limit.
>
> I'm not subscribed to the list, so please CC me in any relevant discussion.
>
> Kyle
(adding cc to linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org)
The binary mount format is frozen forever, so the changes to nfs_mount.h
and nfs4_mount.h are definitely NACKed.
Otherwise, it would be nice to know why this absolutely has to be made a
mount option rather than just having a system-wide option (either a
module/boot parameter or a sysctl) to control the behaviour of all
mounts.
Cheers
Trond
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists