[lkml]   [2004]   [Dec]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: cifs large write performance improvements to Samba
The current mainline (very recent 2.6.10-rc Linux tree) should be fine 
from memory leak perspective. No such leaks have been reported AFAIK on
current cifs code and certainly none that I have detected in heavy
stress testing.

I do need to add some additional filesystem tests to the regression test
mix soon, and I have asked one of the guys here with a ppc64 box to
run some more bigendian tests on it too. The ltp has filesystems tests
scatterred in multiple directories which I need to track down and setup
scripts to automate (e.g. the sendfile tests are not in the same
directory with other tests in testcases/kernel/fs, nor is the very
useful "connectathon nfs" posix filesystem test suite)

The oops (referenced in your post) does need to be fixed of course, but
since the code that would cause it is disabled (and only is broken to
certain servers and is noted as broken in the TODO list, implying that
it should not be turned on in /proc/fs/cifs) - I was considering it
lower priority than the other issues recently fixed which have been
consuming my time. Fixing/adding support for extended security is
getting closer to the top of the priority list now though. If I can at
least prevent the oops with a small change (even if it does not fully
fix the spnego code) I will push that changeset in soon. The userspace
piece should be -- much -- easier to communicate with now that the
kevents stuff is in. Very high on the list as well is getting NTLMv2
tested and working as many environments require it. Figuring out the
mysterious byte range lock failure which sometimes occurs on an unlock
in locktest 7 (I noticed it starting after the nfs changes for the vfs
posix locking a few months ago) and I have posted about before (Kernel
panic - not syncing: Attempting to free lock with active blocklist) is a
slightly higher priority. Basically I need to figure out what is going
on with the line in fs/locks.c?

if (!list_empty <;i=list_empty>(&fl->fl_block)
panic <;i=panic>(/"Attempting to free lock with active block list"/);

Since I am not adding anything to the fl_block list intentionally, I
need to find out what causes items to be added to the fl_block list (ie
when the locks_insert_block and locks_delete_block call are made and why
they sometimes happen differently in lock test 7 then in other byte
range lock testcases in which unlock obviously works fine).

On the issue of regressing back to smbfs :) There are a few things
which can be done that would help.

1) Need to post an updated version of when to still use smbfs for an
occassional mount (there are only a couple of cases in which smbfs has
to be used now but they are important to some users - such as users who
have to access an occassional old OS/2 or DOS server, or who need
Kerberos), and I need to add it that chart to the fs/cifs/README and the
project page etc.
2) Public view of the status of testing - the raw data needs to be
posted regularly as kernel updated (and against five or six different
server types) so users see what is broken in smbfs (and so users can see
what posix issues are still being worked on cifs and any known
problems). smbfs fails about half of the filesystem tests that I have
tried, due to stress issues, or because the tests requires better posix
compliance or because of various smbfs stability fixes.

If only someone could roll all of the key fs tests into a set of
scripts which could generate one regularly updated set of test status
chart ... one for each of XFS, JFS, ext3, Reiser3, CIFS (against various
servers, Samba version etc), NFSv2, NFSv3, NFSv4 (against various
servers), AFS but that would be a lot of work (not to run) but the first
time writing/setup of the scripts to launch the tests in the right order
since some failures may be expected (at least for the network
filesystems) due to hard to implement features (missing fcntls, dnotify,
get/setlease, differences in byte range lock semantics, lack of flock
etc.) and also since the most sensible NFS, AFS and CIFS tests would
involve more than one client (to test caching/oplock/token management
semantics better) but no such fs tests AFAIK exist for Linux.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:08    [W:0.038 / U:0.700 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site