Re: [PATCH] sunrpc: use better NUMA affinities
From: Greg Banks <hidden>
Date: 2011-07-29 20:34:51
Also in:
linux-nfs, lkml
Sent from my iPhone On 30/07/2011, at 2:53, "J. Bruce Fields" [off-list ref] wrote:
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 12:48:36PM -0400, bfields wrote:quoted
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 11:30:05PM +1000, Greg Banks wrote:quoted
Sent from my iPhone On 29/07/2011, at 22:11, Eric Dumazet [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
Le vendredi 29 juillet 2011 à 21:58 +1000, Greg Banks a écrit :quoted
Sure, and a whole lot of the callsites are ("..._%d", cpu), hence the unfortune :(BTW, we could name nfsd threads differently : Currently, they all are named : "nfsd" If SVC_POOL_PERCPU is selected, we could name them : nfsd_c0 -> nfsd_cN If SVC_POOL_PERNODE is selected, we could name them : nfsd_n0 -> nfsd_nN That would help to check with "ps aux" which cpu/nodes are under stress.I like it!Yup, patch welcomed.--b.(Annoying fact: some initscripts stop nfsd using a rough equivalent of "killall nfsd". So the name of the threads is arguably ABI. I think those initscripts are nuts and deserve what they get, but that may be because I'm forgetting the reason they do that.)
We had this discussion in May-June 2008; it's because the nfsds were once many many years ago userspace threads. The "killall nfsd" semantics in those scripts are awful and lead to problems shutting down when there are lots of threads. It would probably be an improvement to provide a better shutdown mechanism and force distros to use it. Or, you could preserve the effective semantics by having a single "nfsd" thread whose purpose is to notice that it's being signalled and perform a clean shutdown (perhaps blocking the thread doing the kill() call until the shutdown has completed). Greg.-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html