Return-Path: Received: from mx2.parallels.com ([64.131.90.16]:36459 "EHLO mx2.parallels.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752041Ab1BVNbP (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Feb 2011 08:31:15 -0500 Received: from [96.31.168.206] (helo=mail.parallels.com) by mx2.parallels.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PrsKh-0000tU-06 for linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org; Tue, 22 Feb 2011 08:31:15 -0500 Message-ID: <4D63BAA0.3090505@parallels.com> Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 07:31:12 -0600 From: Rob Landley To: Subject: CACHE_NEW_EXPIRY is 120, nextcheck initialized to 30*60=1800? Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 In net/sunrpc/cache.c line 416 or so (function cache_clean()) there's this bit: else { current_index = 0; current_detail->nextcheck = seconds_since_boot()+30*60; } The other uses of seconds_since_boot() add CACHE_NEW_EXPIRY (which is 120). This is A) more than ten times that, B) a magic inline constant. Is there a reason for this? (Some subtle cache lifetime balancing thing?) Rob