Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCCCCC282C5 for ; Thu, 24 Jan 2019 19:17:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A99C1218CD for ; Thu, 24 Jan 2019 19:17:55 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="ngCu9brs" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727488AbfAXTRy (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Jan 2019 14:17:54 -0500 Received: from mail-pl1-f196.google.com ([209.85.214.196]:43475 "EHLO mail-pl1-f196.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727898AbfAXTRv (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Jan 2019 14:17:51 -0500 Received: by mail-pl1-f196.google.com with SMTP id gn14so3314760plb.10 for ; Thu, 24 Jan 2019 11:17:51 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=hdv1i0pvseCepLH6vzEQIOAL68CGq/3YNhRfHjBOkmE=; b=ngCu9brsjrJ89J44lOM22Th90+2fkjEk5gnPsHAc0Or3P0RgYaecPkMJjfQzCIQKZF J6tEUeMErW3rcXT9AiWCVy0RpRcUGAVxx0FfDdm/OJWzoZ6CfaO5yn9AwJZBF43CjH5q XkUxEYYv/DoMsVef4CLluweubIBf/LEzMa0SPPwCHCxbtU91d6ssEKySZsEotA7/ZPAl fl/2rS5fiU0Q8SqkFPd0c4eztz8Beub+gVZ47re3SzgILqNojsmEtqmlglTAG4WV/8gP E4taAVrvAybfBCDkkbxATG/S4rSoSwEr8rJuGiRjuqYzY4C6sY6LrfL3hJCPYX+bvaLH bLIQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=hdv1i0pvseCepLH6vzEQIOAL68CGq/3YNhRfHjBOkmE=; b=dJInuVG8CtEKrpHsPHrmhNTRDxzHBuQlLqYUl0oDjFNdi4SyVymqgzZSDACoynGbHq uvw8hqHmIWKioMXDk5E3NrStTqlhDhgRWt0vk/Kdh1I1xyIA+n6EoXHrLCjXGgCoAmpV ccef4XS9vGEZDvAcTZhgLp4hfTu+TVFB9x1KRcR4vqv2LB/Z4BTgTpq7nkgCR3AoRS6E U4H7PfJ3MVwpiwNeUt8SeM0+bgY2IXP8v8jp6A0O8j76J3PoVuwcL4AJd88nI4H4/Jtu EUNzAYwdIr4xikmtyV/SdSMm9jtzEoJSzlwdh+9cv8gw7K5I+XPL9woLSfvd1mvJqCPf NKeA== X-Gm-Message-State: AJcUukcyffOBWk5Y6X3H3UovjkwHsQK7dMV8afccJ+cT29pkCo+m9lVL +MHjZ5S3UMccBdi2IIxwg5I= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ALg8bN6R0NqMPBEFDiEBSIWXiUV7hyNOoACbR2j5sWkSSvJis9eonNUqzYedZf4kyp9738bpcAQsUQ== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:e18c:: with SMTP id cd12mr7347023plb.279.1548357470863; Thu, 24 Jan 2019 11:17:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.3.0.116] ([8.25.222.2]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z14sm26556019pgv.47.2019.01.24.11.17.49 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 24 Jan 2019 11:17:50 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\)) Subject: Re: [PATCH] lockd: NSMPROC_MON should be send only once even if in multithread From: Chuck Lever In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2019 11:17:48 -0800 Cc: Bruce Fields , Jeff Layton , Trond Myklebust , Anna Schumaker , Linux NFS Mailing List Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <1547705746-69554-1-git-send-email-zhangxiaoxu5@huawei.com> <4E812155-4DB4-4EF4-91ED-EDBB1B0BBFF7@gmail.com> <00390d85-d2dd-be57-4192-bff562a75684@huawei.com> To: "zhangxiaoxu (A)" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1) Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org > On Jan 24, 2019, at 4:29 AM, zhangxiaoxu (A) = wrote: >=20 >=20 >=20 > On 1/19/2019 4:59 AM, Chuck Lever wrote: >>> On Jan 17, 2019, at 9:48 PM, zhangxiaoxu (A) = wrote: >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> 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. >>>=20 >>> 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. >>> I think the msg just send only one time is enough. >>> RPC and rpc.statd maybe consume for a long time on the network. >> -- >> Chuck Lever >> chucklever@gmail.com -- Chuck Lever chucklever@gmail.com