From: "Lever, Charles" Subject: RE: [PATCH 2.6.3] Add write throttling to NFS client Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 22:52:11 -0800 Sender: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Message-ID: <482A3FA0050D21419C269D13989C611302B07B9C@lavender-fe.eng.netapp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: , Return-path: Received: from sc8-sf-mx1-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.11] helo=sc8-sf-mx1.sourceforge.net) by sc8-sf-list2.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1AxhLx-0007MO-Jm for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 22:56:37 -0800 Received: from mx01.netapp.com ([198.95.226.53]) by sc8-sf-mx1.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1AxhHy-0003XG-3y for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 22:52:30 -0800 To: , "Shantanu Goel" Errors-To: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Discussion of NFS under Linux development, interoperability, and testing. List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: > If you need to sort everything by pid (...and I'm not=20 > convinced that is > such a great idea) then you can do it by adding 1 extra=20 > linked list in the > struct rpc_task to act as the head of the pid list... No need for any > fragile allocation of extra structures from inside > __rpc_add_wait_queue(). i agree. i'd rather keep __rpc_add_wait_queue and __rpc_remove_wait_queue as simple as possible. more complexity here will significantly impact the per-op overhead, especially if we're holding the BKL and/or other spinlocks when these are called. ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net is sponsored by: Speed Start Your Linux Apps Now. Build and deploy apps & Web services for Linux with a free DVD software kit from IBM. Click Now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1356&alloc_id=3438&op=click _______________________________________________ NFS maillist - NFS@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs