Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <35ca6665f3cbedb60b904bfe4e74ca37c32af985.camel@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/6] Fix some lock contention in the NFS server's DRC
From:   Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
To:     Chuck Lever <cel@kernel.org>, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>
Date:   Mon, 10 Jul 2023 09:03:06 -0400
In-Reply-To: <168891733570.3964.15456501153247760888.stgit@manet.1015granger.net>
References: <168891733570.3964.15456501153247760888.stgit@manet.1015granger.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Evolution 3.48.4 (3.48.4-1.fc38) 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, 2023-07-09 at 11:45 -0400, Chuck Lever wrote:
> This series optimizes DRC scalability by freeing cache objects only
> once the hash bucket lock is no longer held. There are a couple of
> related clean-ups to go along with this optimization.
>=20


The conventional wisdom that I've always heard is that a kfree under
spinlock is generally no big deal. It can't block and is usually quite
fast. Are you able to measure any performance delta from this set?


> ---
>=20
> Chuck Lever (6):
>       NFSD: Refactor nfsd_reply_cache_free_locked()
>       NFSD: Rename nfsd_reply_cache_alloc()
>       NFSD: Replace nfsd_prune_bucket()
>       NFSD: Refactor the duplicate reply cache shrinker
>       NFSD: Remove svc_rqst::rq_cacherep
>       NFSD: Rename struct svc_cacherep
>=20
>=20
>  fs/nfsd/cache.h            |   8 +-
>  fs/nfsd/nfscache.c         | 203 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
>  fs/nfsd/nfssvc.c           |  10 +-
>  fs/nfsd/trace.h            |  26 ++++-
>  include/linux/sunrpc/svc.h |   1 -
>  5 files changed, 165 insertions(+), 83 deletions(-)
>=20
> --
> Chuck Lever
>=20

--=20
Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>