From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Apr 27 16:08:58 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from green.homeunix.org (freefall.freebsd.org [216.136.204.21]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A29116A4CE; Wed, 27 Apr 2005 16:08:58 +0000 (GMT) Received: from green.homeunix.org (green@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by green.homeunix.org (8.13.3/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j3RG8wDc038762; Wed, 27 Apr 2005 12:08:58 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from green@green.homeunix.org) Received: (from green@localhost) by green.homeunix.org (8.13.3/8.13.1/Submit) id j3RG8vGX038761; Wed, 27 Apr 2005 12:08:57 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from green) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 12:08:57 -0400 From: Brian Fundakowski Feldman To: Marc Olzheim Message-ID: <20050427160857.GF5789@green.homeunix.org> References: <16998.36437.809896.936800@khavrinen.csail.mit.edu> <20050420173859.GA99695@stack.nl> <20050426140701.GB5789@green.homeunix.org> <20050426151751.GB68038@stack.nl> <20050426155043.GC5789@green.homeunix.org> <20050426160609.GA68511@stack.nl> <20050426162549.GD5789@green.homeunix.org> <20050426164346.GA68763@stack.nl> <20050426193602.GE5789@green.homeunix.org> <20050427081746.GA66441@stack.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050427081746.GA66441@stack.nl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: NFS client/buffer cache deadlock X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 16:08:58 -0000 On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 10:17:46AM +0200, Marc Olzheim wrote: > On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 03:36:02PM -0400, Brian Fundakowski Feldman wrote: > > I'm still guessing that for whatever reason your writes on the FreeBSD > > 4.x NFS client are not using NFSv3/transactions. The second method > > I just now implemented; it works fine except for being slower since > > all data is acknowledged synchronously. Are you using one writev() > > instead of many writes so you can atomically write a large sparse data > > structure? If so, you will probably just have to cope with the lower > > performance than for reasonably-sized writes. If not: why are you > > trying to write it atomically? Just use multiple normal-sized write() > > calls. > > Yes, a single writev(). Just like in the kern/79207 PR. > > It doesn't have to be superfast (why would I use NFS otherwise), just as > long as it's threadsafe / atomic. Alright, this will do synchronous, instead of short, writes (also, of course, not deadlock the system) if you are trying to use an excessively large buffer size. -- Brian Fundakowski Feldman \'[ FreeBSD ]''''''''''\ <> green@FreeBSD.org \ The Power to Serve! \ Opinions expressed are my own. \,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,\