[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <124712.40022.qm@web32602.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 01:38:57 -0700 (PDT)
From: Martin Knoblauch <knobi@...bisoft.de>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Greg Banks <gnb@...bourne.sgi.com>,
linux-nfs list <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [RFC][Resend] Make NFS-Client readahead tunable
----- Original Message ----
> From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
> To: Martin Knoblauch <knobi@...bisoft.de>
> Cc: Greg Banks <gnb@...bourne.sgi.com>; linux-nfs list <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
> Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 10:18:18 AM
> Subject: Re: [RFC][Resend] Make NFS-Client readahead tunable
>
> On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 00:42:58 -0700 (PDT) Martin Knoblauch
> wrote:
>
> > ----- Original Message ----
> >
> > > From: Andrew Morton
> > > To: Greg Banks
> > > Cc: Martin Knoblauch ; linux-nfs list
> ; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
> > > Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 5:13:34 AM
> > > Subject: Re: [RFC][Resend] Make NFS-Client readahead tunable
> > >
> > > On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 11:42:54 +1000 Greg Banks wrote:
> > >
> > > > I think having a tunable for client readahead is an excellent idea,
> > > > although not to solve your particular problem. The SLES10 kernel has a
> > > > patch which does precisely that, perhaps Neil could post it.
> > > >
> > > > I don't think there's a lot of point having both a module parameter and
> > > > a sysctl.
> > >
> > > mount -o remount,readahead=42
> >
> > [root@...dm52 ~]# mount -o remount,readahead=42 /net/spsdms/fs13
> > Bad nfs mount parameter: readahead
> > [root@...dm52 ~]# mount -o readahead=42 /net/spsdms/fs13
> > Bad nfs mount parameter: readahead
> >
> >
> > I assume the reply was meant to say that the correct way of introducing a
> modifyable readahead size is to implement it as a mount option ? :-)
>
> Yes.
>
:-)
> > I considered it, but it seems to be more intrusive than the workaround patch.
> It also needs changes to userspace tools - correct?
>
> No. mount(8) will pass unrecognised options straight down into the
> filesystem driver.
>
Has that always been the case, or is it a recent change? I have to support RHEL4 userland, which is not really new.
> It's better this way - it allows the tunable to be set on a per-mount
> basis rather than machine-wide.
>
No question about that. I just thought it to be to complicated. Maybe I erred.
> Note that for block devices, readahead is a per-backing_dev_info thing
> (and a backing_dev_info has a 1:1 relationship to a disk drive for sane
> setups).
>
> And the NFS client maintains a backing_dev_info, which appears to map
> onto a server, so making the NFS readahead a per-backing_dev_info (ie:
> per server) thing might make sense. Maybe nfs makes per-server information
> manipulatable down in sysfs somewhere..
I believe Peter wanted to add per bdi stuff for nfs some time ago. Not sure what came out of it.
Cheers
Martin
--
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