lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1996]   [Apr]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: nfsiod issues?
    Date
    From
    On Mon, 15 Apr 1996 23:18:31 CDT, "Larry 'Daffy' Daffner" wrote:
    > I am assuming that from a process standpoint, the nfsiod code looks
    > like a normal process with it's memory space mapped into kernel space,

    Almost. Kernel threads are not subject to pre-emptive scheduling, so you
    `just' have to make sure that you keep your data consistent between
    operations that call schedule() or sleep_on().

    Using daemons for NFS readahead is an old and admittedly ugly concept;
    if you have a better idea how to do, I'd sure want to know.

    I'm working on redoing the nfsiod support at the moment so that only
    one nfsiod is required rather than n.

    > In addition, the locking of insmod's memory and command line look bad
    > and are confusing unless you have read the README.

    Agreed. That's on my todo list, but rather towards the bottom of it.
    > Also, what about loading/unloading the nfs module. Is it really the
    > only viable solution to keep the nfsiod's around and the nfs.o module
    > loaded until said processes are killed?

    No, you can use nfs without nfsiod. The performance will just be what it
    used to be before adding readahead.

    > It seems strongly against the concept of loadable modules to me,
    > especially with kerneld.

    In this case, probably kerneld should be fixed to run `killall -TERM nfsiod'
    before unloading the module.

    Olaf
    --
    Olaf Kirch | --- o --- Nous sommes du soleil we love when we play
    okir@monad.swb.de | / | \ sol.dhoop.naytheet.ah kin.ir.samse.qurax
    For my PGP public key, finger okir@brewhq.swb.de.


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:37    [W:6.900 / U:0.008 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site