From: Peter Astrand Subject: Re: Re: NFS retry on disconnection Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 10:38:58 +0200 (CEST) Sender: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=iso-8859-1 Return-path: Received: from a88.lambo.student.liu.se ([130.236.229.88]) by usw-sf-list1.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 3.31-VA-mm2 #1 (Debian)) id 177Xpn-0005Ci-00 for ; Tue, 14 May 2002 01:39:03 -0700 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a88.lambo.student.liu.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F9FCCF3E for ; Tue, 14 May 2002 10:38:58 +0200 (CEST) To: nfs@lists.sourceforge.net In-Reply-To: Errors-To: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Discussion of NFS under Linux development, interoperability, and testing. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: > > One thing that keeps annoying me is that "intr" only allows > > interrupting the file operation when a major timeout happens. I > > Nope. Major, minor, it all goes through the same code and both can be > interrupted. Does this mean that the man page nfs(5) is incorrect? It says: "intr If an NFS file operation has a major timeout and it is hard mounted, then allow signals to interupt the file operation and cause it to return EINTR to the calling program." > If, say, they are both waiting to read data from the same page, then > only one process actually does the RPC call. The VFS/MM layers will > put the other process to sleep in the global function 'lock_page()'. > That unfortunately means that it cannot interrupt, since 'lock_page()' > does not do interruptible sleeps. I see. And this is not possible to change? -- /Peter ?strand _______________________________________________________________ Have big pipes? SourceForge.net is looking for download mirrors. We supply the hardware. You get the recognition. Email Us: bandwidth@sourceforge.net _______________________________________________ NFS maillist - NFS@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs