From: Jim Rees Subject: Re: [RFC][Resend] Make NFS-Client readahead tunable Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 11:31:12 -0400 Message-ID: <20080917153112.GA22500@citi.umich.edu> References: <995475.95604.qm@web32607.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-nfs list To: Martin Knoblauch Return-path: Received: from smtp.mail.umich.edu ([141.211.93.161]:53166 "EHLO tombraider.mr.itd.umich.edu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752217AbYIQPkP (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Sep 2008 11:40:15 -0400 In-Reply-To: <995475.95604.qm-f6uctMgKLEavuULXzWHTWIglqE1Y4D90QQ4Iyu8u01E@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Martin Knoblauch wrote: We never needed that in our case. But yes, would be trivial. The question is, whether there should be a maximum, just as a safeguard. Yes. The default should be (RPC_DEF_SLOT_TABLE - 1), and the maximum should be max(xprt_udp_slot_table_entries, xprt_tcp_slot_table_entries) (maybe minus one). I wonder if it would make sense to adjust NFS_MAX_READAHEAD when xprt_*_slot_table_entries is changed via sysctl.