[linux-cifs] Re: [PATCH 06/11] CIFS: Respect MaxMpxCount field


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 11:42:49 -0600
Steve French  wrote:

> I think the best way to handle this is to do the special casing
> (limiting retries, turning off byte range blocking locks, turning off
> oplock) for the servers which do limit maxmpx to small values.   For
> maxmpx=50 or higher (or if you wish to narrow this, distinguish
> servers like Samba more narrowly by check for the unix extensions that
> is fine) which shouldn't be stricter than windows (whose client will
> exceed 50 simultaneous requests for various cases Chris described).
> There is a significant chance of deadlock if we don't allow writes
> through due to counting blocking byte range locks against maxmpx too
> strictly.   We do have to fix the case of maxmpx = 1 or 2 (disable
> oplock and possibly echo) and enforce maxmpx for those which set it
> lower than 50 - but the byte range lock issue has never come up, and
> fixing it the way pavel describes would be stricter than windows and
> risk deadlock by chewing up slots.
> 
> Another issue is that we are significantly underutilizes Samba by
> setting maxmpx so low, but if we expect to move to SMB2 soon, it may
> not matter.
> 

I'm having a hard time understanding what you're proposing above. It
sounds like you're saying that when the server sends maxmpx >= 50 that
you think we should effectively treat that as unlimited?

Can you lay out the "rules" (and the exceptions thereof) that you're
proposing here?

- -- 
Jeff Layton 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux)
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=jJfp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

This message from: http://www.mailbrowse.com/linux-cifs/5550.html
Previous message: Re: [linux-cifs-client] [PATCH] cifs: hard mount option behaviour implementation
Next message:Re: [PATCH 06/11] CIFS: Respect MaxMpxCount field