Re: NFS client/buffer cache deadlock

On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 11:47:00AM +0200, Marc Olzheim wrote: > On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 12:08:57PM -0400, Brian Fundakowski Feldman wrote: > > 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

Re: NFS client/buffer cache deadlock

On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 12:08:57PM -0400, Brian Fundakowski Feldman wrote: > 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. > >

Re: NFS client/buffer cache deadlock

On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 03:41:44PM -0400, Brian Fundakowski Feldman wrote: > Alright, thanks for testing. So the same bug exists in 4.x but may > not actually deadlock the buffer cache in the same circumstances. > If you feel like playing with it anymore, I would expect a certain > write block siz

Re: NFS client/buffer cache deadlock

On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 09:19:38PM +0200, Marc Olzheim wrote: > On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 03:06:27PM -0400, Brian Fundakowski Feldman wrote: > > > How can I tell whether it uses transactions ? > > > > I am not sure -- it should with NFSv3 though. Does "mount -v" tell > > you anything more detailed?

Re: NFS client/buffer cache deadlock

On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 03:06:27PM -0400, Brian Fundakowski Feldman wrote: > > How can I tell whether it uses transactions ? > > I am not sure -- it should with NFSv3 though. Does "mount -v" tell > you anything more detailed? I suppose that nfsstat may also be used > -- the "commit" count should

Re: NFS client/buffer cache deadlock

On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 08:42:03PM +0200, Marc Olzheim wrote: > On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 02:34:35PM -0400, Brian Fundakowski Feldman wrote: > > Alright, thanks for helping with this :-) Do you think you can find > > a way to tell if in 4.x you're actually using NFSv3/transactions? I > > would reall

Re: NFS client/buffer cache deadlock

On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 02:34:35PM -0400, Brian Fundakowski Feldman wrote: > Alright, thanks for helping with this :-) Do you think you can find > a way to tell if in 4.x you're actually using NFSv3/transactions? I > would really like to know why 4.x isn't deadlocking, and that's the > most plausi

Re: NFS client/buffer cache deadlock

On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 07:15:23PM +0200, Marc Olzheim wrote: > On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 12:08:57PM -0400, Brian Fundakowski Feldman wrote: > > > 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 a

Re: NFS client/buffer cache deadlock

On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 12:08:57PM -0400, Brian Fundakowski Feldman wrote: > > 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, inst

Re: NFS client/buffer cache deadlock

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 no

Re: NFS client/buffer cache deadlock

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

Re: NFS client/buffer cache deadlock

On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 06:43:46PM +0200, Marc Olzheim wrote: > [changed cc: from standards@ back to stable@ again.] > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 12:25:49PM -0400, Brian Fundakowski Feldman wrote: > > You can assure that this happens in only two ways: > > > > 1. Make a complete copy of the data.

Re: NFS client/buffer cache deadlock

[changed cc: from standards@ back to stable@ again.] On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 12:25:49PM -0400, Brian Fundakowski Feldman wrote: > You can assure that this happens in only two ways: > > 1. Make a complete copy of the data. This is what currently occurs: >it gets stuffed into the buffer cache