NLM: Proposal for a timeout setting on blocking locks
Get series with b4
b4 am [email protected]Versions newest first
- v1 Latest3 patches 4 repliesIn review
Patches in v1 No applies recorded yet
| # | Subject and files | Size | Replies | Applied |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1/3 | NLM: Proposal for a timeout setting on blocking locks | +0 | 0 replies | |
| 2/3 | NLM: Proposal for a timeout setting on blocking locks | +0 | 0 replies | |
| 3/3 | NLM: Proposal for a timeout setting on blocking locks | +0 | 0 replies |
Reviews trailers per patch
No Reviewed-by, Acked-by or Tested-by trailers for v1 yet.
Cover letter [PATCH 0/3] NLM: Proposal for a timeout setting on blocking locks
Hi,
When a lock blocks, the server sends us a BLOCKED message. When it releases, it may sends us an NLM callback. When it does not (it depends on NLM
implementations), the client waits for 30 seconds before attempting to reclaim
the lock again.
The 30 seconds time is hard-coded on fs/lockd/clntproc.c:
#define NLMCLNT_POLL_TIMEOUT (30*HZ)
30 seconds is generally suitable, but in some cases, it is too much and it may be set to less than that. I have this problem in my production env ironment when an e-mail box receives more than 1 e-mail every 30 seconds. In that particular case, the nlm_blocked list grows up and never reduce s. Setting this time to less than 30 seconds resolves the problem.
This short series of patches enables the set of this timeout, setting a new /proc entry named nlm_clnt_poll_timeout (this name is based on the NL MCLNT_POLL_TIMEOUT define). Patches are based on the 2.6.24.3 version (is that a problem? may I base them on the 2.6.25-rc5 one?).
What do you think about this? Any comments are very welcome.
Cheers, Mikael
Signature · 3 lines
Mikael Davranche System Engineer Atos Worldline, France