Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Mon, 10 Aug 2020 16:10:01 -0400
From:   Bruce Fields <bfields@fieldses.org>
To:     Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>
Cc:     Linux NFS Mailing List <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: still seeing single client NFS4ERR_DELAY / CB_RECALL
Message-ID: <20200810201001.GC13266@fieldses.org>
References: <139C6BD7-4052-4510-B966-214ED3E69D61@oracle.com>
 <20200809202739.GA29574@fieldses.org>
 <20200809212531.GB29574@fieldses.org>
 <227E18E8-5A45-47E3-981C-549042AFB391@oracle.com>
 <20200810190729.GB13266@fieldses.org>
 <00CAA5B7-418E-4AB5-AE08-FE2F87B06795@oracle.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <00CAA5B7-418E-4AB5-AE08-FE2F87B06795@oracle.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 04:01:00PM -0400, Chuck Lever wrote:
> Roughly the same result with this patch as with the first one. The
> first one is a little better. Plus, I think the Solaris NFS server
> hands out write delegations on v4.0, and I haven't heard of a
> significant issue there. It's heuristics may be different, though.
> 
> So, it might be that NFSv4.0 has always run significantly slower. I
> will have to try a v5.4 or older server to see.

Oh, OK, I was assuming this was a regression.

> Also, instead of timing, I should count forward channel RPCs and
> callbacks, or perhaps the number of DELAY responses.

Thanks for looking into this!

--b.