From: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@redhat.com>
To: Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Trond Myklebust <trondmy@hammerspace.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Shaohua Li <shli@fb.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Eliminate delegation self-conflicts
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 10:58:04 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190211155803.GA28714@parsley.fieldses.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bbc264481c2368f1e7a386cafb0cd5fba6af7ecf.camel@redhat.com>
On Sat, Feb 09, 2019 at 07:43:54AM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Fri, 2019-02-08 at 15:10 -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > From: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@redhat.com>
> >
> > These patches allow NFSv4 clients holding delegations to keep them when
> > the operation that would break a delegation comes from the same client.
> >
> > To do that, we somehow need to pass the identity of the
> > delegation-breaker down through the VFS.
> >
> > This series uses the tgid, a solution suggested by Trond. To do that we
> > need nfsd tasks to share the same tgid. I do that by extending the
> > kthread code slightly to allow knfsd to run the kthreadd main loop in a
> > task of its own, and spawn its server threads off of that task.
...
> Nice work! I like the basic idea, the changes seem to be well-organized,
> and the tgid semantics are clear and make sense.
>
> Would this preclude us from moving to a workqueue-based model for knfsd
> later? It's likely to still be worth it, but it'd be good to understand
> the potential drawbacks.
I was wondering about that too, but I haven't looked into it yet.
Workqueues look a lot more complicated than kthreads.
--b.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-02-11 15:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-02-08 20:10 [PATCH 0/7] Eliminate delegation self-conflicts J. Bruce Fields
2019-02-08 20:10 ` [PATCH 1/7] kthreads: minor kthreadd refactoring J. Bruce Fields
2019-02-08 20:10 ` [PATCH 2/7] kthreads: Simplify tsk_fork_get_node J. Bruce Fields
2019-02-08 20:10 ` [PATCH 3/7] kthreads: allow multiple kthreadd's J. Bruce Fields
2019-03-12 20:01 ` J. Bruce Fields
2019-02-08 20:10 ` [PATCH 4/7] kthreads: allow cloning threads with different flags J. Bruce Fields
2019-02-08 20:10 ` [PATCH 5/7] rpc: separate out body of svc_start_kthreads J. Bruce Fields
2019-02-08 20:10 ` [PATCH 6/7] rpc: move rpc server threads into their own thread group J. Bruce Fields
2019-02-08 20:10 ` [PATCH 7/7] nfsd: ignore delegation self-conflicts J. Bruce Fields
2019-02-09 12:43 ` [PATCH 0/7] Eliminate " Jeff Layton
2019-02-11 15:58 ` J. Bruce Fields [this message]
2019-02-15 16:35 ` J. Bruce Fields
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=20190211155803.GA28714@parsley.fieldses.org \
--to=bfields@redhat.com \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=jlayton@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=shli@fb.com \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=trondmy@hammerspace.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).