From: Wendy Cheng Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Fix lockd panic Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 23:43:22 -0500 Message-ID: <478450EA.7030608@redhat.com> References: <4781BE72.7050404@redhat.com> <18307.2757.579354.785142@notabene.brown> <47843957.9060208@redhat.com> Reply-To: wcheng@redhat.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Cc: Neil Brown , NFS list , cluster-devel@redhat.com To: wcheng@redhat.com Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:50333 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753265AbYAIE0Q (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Jan 2008 23:26:16 -0500 In-Reply-To: <47843957.9060208@redhat.com> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Wendy Cheng wrote: > Neil Brown wrote: > >> Some options: >> >> Have an initial patch which removes all references to f_locks and >> includes the change in this patch. With that in place your main >> patch won't introduce a bug. If you do this, you should attempt to >> understand and justify the performance impact (does nlm_traverse_files >> become quadratic in number of locks. Is that acceptable?). >> >> Change the first patch to explicitly update f_count if you bypass the >> call to nlm_inspect_file. >> >> something else??? >> >> > > Let's see what hch says in another email... will come back to this soon. > Will do a quick and dirty performance measure tomorrow when I get to the office. Then we'll go from there. -- Wendy