Re: [linux-cifs-client] Re: [PATCH] cifs: fix fh_mutex locking in cifs_reopen_file

[Jeff Layton]

On Sun, 2009-06-28 at 14:02 -0500, Steve French wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 11:43 AM, Steve French<smfrench@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 8:23 PM, Jeff Layton<jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > In any case, as long as we are sure we are hitting a Samba server
> > limit (or server side
> > per-process limit), we are ok and can continue to review/merge the very large
> > inode patches.  I am verifying with one additional pair of temporary
> > stats (counters of successful opens) in the exit path of cifs_open and
> > cifs_close)
> > to make sure that those match what I have already verified that we are seeing
> > with smbstatus and the client side counters on number of successful posix_opens.
> 
> I am puzzled about the Samba 3.4 max files limit (I am seeing it at
> 1014 opens) and seems
> strange that dbench would open so many files, but with counters in
> cifs_open and cifs_close - I see 1014 more opens than closes (from the vfs)
> which matches what I see at the SMB level and what I see in Samba server.
> dbench 4 fails even faster.   This also fails on other OS (opensuse,
> Ubuntu etc.),
> but worked on Samba 3.0.28.  Is it possible that Samba 3.4 changed their
> max open file limit?
> 
> 

Doesn't 3.0.28 have broken POSIX open calls? That may account for the
difference. I can't be certain I was seeing the same failures you were
with dbench, but I never got a passing run until I applied that patch to
fix the reopen locking.

-- 
Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/