Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [linux-cifs-client] Re: [PATCH] cifs: fix fh_mutex locking in cifs_reopen_file | From | Jeff Layton <> | Date | Sun, 28 Jun 2009 19:18:09 -0400 |
| |
On Sun, 2009-06-28 at 14:02 -0500, Steve French wrote: > On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 11:43 AM, Steve French<smfrench@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 8:23 PM, Jeff Layton<jlayton@redhat.com> 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@redhat.com>
| |