[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120516205458.GC20487@fieldses.org>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 16:54:58 -0400
From: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>
To: Stanislav Kinsbursky <skinsbursky@...allels.com>
Cc: Trond.Myklebust@...app.com, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devel@...nvz.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 00/13] Lockd: grace period containerization
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 04:06:30PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Sat, May 05, 2012 at 09:21:30PM +0400, Stanislav Kinsbursky wrote:
> > This patch set is marked with RFC, because I'm still not quite sure, that this
> > implementation will satisfy other interested people.
> > So, would be appreciated for any comments.
> >
> > This patch set makes grace period and hosts reclaiming network namespace
> > aware.
> >
> > Main ideas:
> > 1) moving of
> >
> > unsigned long next_gc;
> > unsigned long nrhosts;
> >
> > struct delayed_work grace_period_end;
> > struct lock_manager lockd_manager;
> > struct list_head grace_list;
> >
> > to per-net Lockd data.
> >
> > 2) moving of
> >
> > struct lock_manager nfsd4_manager;
> >
> > to per-net NFSd data.
> >
> > 3) shutdown + gc of NLM hosts done now network namespace aware.
>
> That all sounds reasonable to me.
>
> > 4) restart_grace() now works only for init_net.
>
> Eventually we might just remove that. I doubt it's used anywhere.
And on a quick skim I don't see anything wrong with the patches
themselves; let me know when you consider them ready.
The per-net grace period management probably isn't what we'll want
eventually, but as I said on the other thread I think it's a reasonable
starting point.
--b.
--
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