From: Trond Myklebust <trondmy@hammerspace.com>
To: "chucklever@gmail.com" <chucklever@gmail.com>,
"zhangxiaoxu5@huawei.com" <zhangxiaoxu5@huawei.com>
Cc: "bfields@fieldses.org" <bfields@fieldses.org>,
"anna.schumaker@netapp.com" <anna.schumaker@netapp.com>,
"linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org" <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>,
"jlayton@kernel.org" <jlayton@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] lockd: NSMPROC_MON should be send only once even if in multithread
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2019 19:53:19 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <741d9199bf20e7a20e9ac612bd280b6b285a7cd4.camel@hammerspace.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <DE9790AD-A95E-43CB-9A5C-A55DD10294CC@gmail.com>
On Thu, 2019-01-24 at 11:17 -0800, Chuck Lever wrote:
> > On Jan 24, 2019, at 4:29 AM, zhangxiaoxu (A) <
> > zhangxiaoxu5@huawei.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On 1/19/2019 4:59 AM, Chuck Lever wrote:
> > > > On Jan 17, 2019, at 9:48 PM, zhangxiaoxu (A) <
> > > > zhangxiaoxu5@huawei.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 1/17/2019 10:33 PM, Chuck Lever wrote:
> > > > > Hi, what is the harm of sending more than one MON request for
> > > > > a peer?
> > > > Maybe no harm.
> > > > The rpc.statd won't record the peer twice.
> > > >
> > > > I found this when I tested the xfstest generic/089.
> > > > The rpc task for that msg sometimes take very long time.
> > > > rpc took 57 sec who t_mtab/2377 srv rpc.statd xid 2453489031
> > > > prog statd/100024/1 proc 2 prot 6 flags 0x680
> > > MON is supposed to be a call to a local service (on the same
> > > host).
> > > It would be interesting if you could determine why it takes so
> > > long.
> > Yes, I'm working for that.
> > I think this is an optimization point.
> > Why do we have to send multiple requests?
>
> I agree that multiple requests are unnecessary, but
> they are harmless too. I don't think it's worth the
> trouble to change this behavior.
>
> The problem is MON requests on your system takes too long.
57 seconds is pretty much unheard of. Is rpc.statd correctly registered
with rpcbind, and is the port that rpc.statd is listening on open to
connections from localhost (i.e. no firewall blockage)?
--
Trond Myklebust
Linux NFS client maintainer, Hammerspace
trond.myklebust@hammerspace.com
prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-01-24 19:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-01-17 6:15 [PATCH] lockd: NSMPROC_MON should be send only once even if in multithread ZhangXiaoxu
2019-01-17 14:33 ` Chuck Lever
2019-01-18 2:48 ` zhangxiaoxu (A)
2019-01-18 20:59 ` Chuck Lever
2019-01-24 12:29 ` zhangxiaoxu (A)
2019-01-24 19:17 ` Chuck Lever
2019-01-24 19:53 ` Trond Myklebust [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=741d9199bf20e7a20e9ac612bd280b6b285a7cd4.camel@hammerspace.com \
--to=trondmy@hammerspace.com \
--cc=anna.schumaker@netapp.com \
--cc=bfields@fieldses.org \
--cc=chucklever@gmail.com \
--cc=jlayton@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=zhangxiaoxu5@huawei.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.