| Message ID | 1231424128-5598-1-git-send-email-jlayton@redhat.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
We really need to revisit the dnotify/inotify code ... the SMB spec lists what the protocol allows, but AFAIK no one has had a chance to prototype this. It is among the highest priority features still needed to implement in cifs. As we have talked about before, dnotify (or inotify) is even more useful for network file systems than local file systems (since the alternative, polling, is too expensive to do over the network). CIFS and SMB2 protocols, unlike NFS, has a mechanism to handle dnotify, but mapping it to the VFS has not been investigated sufficiently On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 8:15 AM, Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com> wrote: > Al Viro recently removed the dir_notify code from the kernel along with > the CIFS code that used it. We can also get rid of the dnotify thread > as well. > > In actuality, it never had anything to do with dir_notify anyway. All > it did was unnecessarily wake up all the tasks waiting on the response > queues every 15s. Previously that happened to prevent tasks from hanging > indefinitely when the server went unresponsive, but we put those to > sleep with proper timeouts now so there's no reason to keep this around. > > Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com> > --- > fs/cifs/cifsfs.c | 47 ----------------------------------------------- > 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 47 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/cifs/cifsfs.c b/fs/cifs/cifsfs.c > index 13ea532..5626af2 100644 > --- a/fs/cifs/cifsfs.c > +++ b/fs/cifs/cifsfs.c > @@ -66,9 +66,6 @@ unsigned int sign_CIFS_PDUs = 1; > extern struct task_struct *oplockThread; /* remove sparse warning */ > struct task_struct *oplockThread = NULL; > /* extern struct task_struct * dnotifyThread; remove sparse warning */ > -#ifdef CONFIG_CIFS_EXPERIMENTAL > -static struct task_struct *dnotifyThread = NULL; > -#endif > static const struct super_operations cifs_super_ops; > unsigned int CIFSMaxBufSize = CIFS_MAX_MSGSIZE; > module_param(CIFSMaxBufSize, int, 0); > @@ -1039,34 +1036,6 @@ static int cifs_oplock_thread(void *dummyarg) > return 0; > } > > -#ifdef CONFIG_CIFS_EXPERIMENTAL > -static int cifs_dnotify_thread(void *dummyarg) > -{ > - struct list_head *tmp; > - struct TCP_Server_Info *server; > - > - do { > - if (try_to_freeze()) > - continue; > - set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE); > - schedule_timeout(15*HZ); > - /* check if any stuck requests that need > - to be woken up and wakeq so the > - thread can wake up and error out */ > - read_lock(&cifs_tcp_ses_lock); > - list_for_each(tmp, &cifs_tcp_ses_list) { > - server = list_entry(tmp, struct TCP_Server_Info, > - tcp_ses_list); > - if (atomic_read(&server->inFlight)) > - wake_up_all(&server->response_q); > - } > - read_unlock(&cifs_tcp_ses_lock); > - } while (!kthread_should_stop()); > - > - return 0; > -} > -#endif > - > static int __init > init_cifs(void) > { > @@ -1143,21 +1112,8 @@ init_cifs(void) > goto out_unregister_dfs_key_type; > } > > -#ifdef CONFIG_CIFS_EXPERIMENTAL > - dnotifyThread = kthread_run(cifs_dnotify_thread, NULL, "cifsdnotifyd"); > - if (IS_ERR(dnotifyThread)) { > - rc = PTR_ERR(dnotifyThread); > - cERROR(1, ("error %d create dnotify thread", rc)); > - goto out_stop_oplock_thread; > - } > -#endif > - > return 0; > > -#ifdef CONFIG_CIFS_EXPERIMENTAL > - out_stop_oplock_thread: > -#endif > - kthread_stop(oplockThread); > out_unregister_dfs_key_type: > #ifdef CONFIG_CIFS_DFS_UPCALL > unregister_key_type(&key_type_dns_resolver); > @@ -1195,9 +1151,6 @@ exit_cifs(void) > cifs_destroy_inodecache(); > cifs_destroy_mids(); > cifs_destroy_request_bufs(); > -#ifdef CONFIG_CIFS_EXPERIMENTAL > - kthread_stop(dnotifyThread); > -#endif > kthread_stop(oplockThread); > } > > -- > 1.5.5.1 > >
On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 08:23:49 -0600 "Steve French" <smfrench@gmail.com> wrote: > We really need to revisit the dnotify/inotify code ... the SMB spec > lists what the protocol allows, but AFAIK no one has had a chance to > prototype this. It is among the highest priority features still > needed to implement in cifs. > > As we have talked about before, dnotify (or inotify) is even more > useful for network file systems than local file systems (since the > alternative, polling, is too expensive to do over the network). CIFS > and SMB2 protocols, unlike NFS, has a mechanism to handle dnotify, but > mapping it to the VFS has not been investigated sufficiently > I'm all for proper dnotify/inotify interfaces, but until we get that code in place I don't see any need to keep this kthread around. It doesn't serve any useful purpose currently -- it's just waking up tasks that don't need to be woken up. We may very well need a separate kthread for the notification code eventually, but I think we should just plan to add it back when the need for it is clear. > On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 8:15 AM, Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com> wrote: > > Al Viro recently removed the dir_notify code from the kernel along with > > the CIFS code that used it. We can also get rid of the dnotify thread > > as well. > > > > In actuality, it never had anything to do with dir_notify anyway. All > > it did was unnecessarily wake up all the tasks waiting on the response > > queues every 15s. Previously that happened to prevent tasks from hanging > > indefinitely when the server went unresponsive, but we put those to > > sleep with proper timeouts now so there's no reason to keep this around. > > > > Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com> > > --- > > fs/cifs/cifsfs.c | 47 ----------------------------------------------- > > 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 47 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/fs/cifs/cifsfs.c b/fs/cifs/cifsfs.c > > index 13ea532..5626af2 100644 > > --- a/fs/cifs/cifsfs.c > > +++ b/fs/cifs/cifsfs.c > > @@ -66,9 +66,6 @@ unsigned int sign_CIFS_PDUs = 1; > > extern struct task_struct *oplockThread; /* remove sparse warning */ > > struct task_struct *oplockThread = NULL; > > /* extern struct task_struct * dnotifyThread; remove sparse warning */ > > -#ifdef CONFIG_CIFS_EXPERIMENTAL > > -static struct task_struct *dnotifyThread = NULL; > > -#endif > > static const struct super_operations cifs_super_ops; > > unsigned int CIFSMaxBufSize = CIFS_MAX_MSGSIZE; > > module_param(CIFSMaxBufSize, int, 0); > > @@ -1039,34 +1036,6 @@ static int cifs_oplock_thread(void *dummyarg) > > return 0; > > } > > > > -#ifdef CONFIG_CIFS_EXPERIMENTAL > > -static int cifs_dnotify_thread(void *dummyarg) > > -{ > > - struct list_head *tmp; > > - struct TCP_Server_Info *server; > > - > > - do { > > - if (try_to_freeze()) > > - continue; > > - set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE); > > - schedule_timeout(15*HZ); > > - /* check if any stuck requests that need > > - to be woken up and wakeq so the > > - thread can wake up and error out */ > > - read_lock(&cifs_tcp_ses_lock); > > - list_for_each(tmp, &cifs_tcp_ses_list) { > > - server = list_entry(tmp, struct TCP_Server_Info, > > - tcp_ses_list); > > - if (atomic_read(&server->inFlight)) > > - wake_up_all(&server->response_q); > > - } > > - read_unlock(&cifs_tcp_ses_lock); > > - } while (!kthread_should_stop()); > > - > > - return 0; > > -} > > -#endif > > - > > static int __init > > init_cifs(void) > > { > > @@ -1143,21 +1112,8 @@ init_cifs(void) > > goto out_unregister_dfs_key_type; > > } > > > > -#ifdef CONFIG_CIFS_EXPERIMENTAL > > - dnotifyThread = kthread_run(cifs_dnotify_thread, NULL, "cifsdnotifyd"); > > - if (IS_ERR(dnotifyThread)) { > > - rc = PTR_ERR(dnotifyThread); > > - cERROR(1, ("error %d create dnotify thread", rc)); > > - goto out_stop_oplock_thread; > > - } > > -#endif > > - > > return 0; > > > > -#ifdef CONFIG_CIFS_EXPERIMENTAL > > - out_stop_oplock_thread: > > -#endif > > - kthread_stop(oplockThread); > > out_unregister_dfs_key_type: > > #ifdef CONFIG_CIFS_DFS_UPCALL > > unregister_key_type(&key_type_dns_resolver); > > @@ -1195,9 +1151,6 @@ exit_cifs(void) > > cifs_destroy_inodecache(); > > cifs_destroy_mids(); > > cifs_destroy_request_bufs(); > > -#ifdef CONFIG_CIFS_EXPERIMENTAL > > - kthread_stop(dnotifyThread); > > -#endif > > kthread_stop(oplockThread); > > } > > > > -- > > 1.5.5.1 > > > > > > > > -- > Thanks, > > Steve
Steve French wrote: > We really need to revisit the dnotify/inotify code ... the SMB spec > lists what the protocol allows, but AFAIK no one has had a chance to > prototype this. It is among the highest priority features still > needed to implement in cifs. > > As we have talked about before, dnotify (or inotify) is even more > useful for network file systems than local file systems (since the > alternative, polling, is too expensive to do over the network). CIFS > and SMB2 protocols, unlike NFS, has a mechanism to handle dnotify, but > mapping it to the VFS has not been investigated sufficiently I think NFSv4 can do it with delegations, although the exact semantics an app could rely on would be different. There are several different kinds of notify that apps could use for different purposes: 1. Queued (an event is posted after a change, will eventually reach the app). 2. Coherent (the app can ask "any notifications for me" and if the answer is no, it can be sure that an attribute/data read issued prior to asking would have yielded what the app already cached; a sort of app cache validation). 3. Lease (the app is notified and must respond prior to a change being allowed to proceed). These form a hierarchy: if the OS/filesystem provides Lease (3), the app can use it in place of Coherent (2) and Queued (1). If the OS/filesystem provides Lease (3) or Coherent (2), the app can use either in place of Queued (1). All of these have different, useful applications. GUIs like Nautilus are happy with Queued (1). For content indexers, it depends how you want them to behave, and how up to date they should seem. For something which computes things from file contents or attributes, such as (possible beneficiaries) any scripting language, Make, Git, JIT system, or web templating system, it needs Coherent (2) notifications; Queued (1) is not reliable for caching. Lease (3) is potentially useful for distributed databases. For CIFS/SMB it looks like all three could be implemented, in different ways. I'm not sure if NFSv4 can do Queued, but I think with delegations it can do Coherent and Lease. For local filesystems, I think Linux provides Coherent but I haven't looked closely. If not, it provides Queued. Al Viro said (long ago) apps should not rely upon timely dnotify/inotify events, and therefore should not use them for consistent app caching. However, timely delivery isn't required, what's required is that reading the inotify descriptor (or reading a flag set by delivery of the dnotify signal / inotify SIGIO?) will definitely return an event if the corresponding file change has become observable by other means. It is about ordering guarantees. If there is a revamp of the fsnotify code for networking especially, please at least have a little think about the different event delivery models and what apps can expect, when which semantics to support. The different models are each useful, and may involve different parts of the networked filesystem protocol. -- Jamie
On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 00:07:08 +0000 Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org> wrote: > Steve French wrote: > > We really need to revisit the dnotify/inotify code ... the SMB spec > > lists what the protocol allows, but AFAIK no one has had a chance to > > prototype this. It is among the highest priority features still > > needed to implement in cifs. > > > > As we have talked about before, dnotify (or inotify) is even more > > useful for network file systems than local file systems (since the > > alternative, polling, is too expensive to do over the network). CIFS > > and SMB2 protocols, unlike NFS, has a mechanism to handle dnotify, but > > mapping it to the VFS has not been investigated sufficiently > > I think NFSv4 can do it with delegations, although the exact semantics > an app could rely on would be different. > I don't think delegations help here since it's entirely up to the server whether to grant one or not. I've only given inotify/dnotify a drive-by look, but I'm pretty sure you'd want the client to be able to set up events to monitor. > There are several different kinds of notify that apps could use for > different purposes: 1. Queued (an event is posted after a change, will > eventually reach the app). 2. Coherent (the app can ask "any > notifications for me" and if the answer is no, it can be sure that an > attribute/data read issued prior to asking would have yielded what the > app already cached; a sort of app cache validation). 3. Lease (the > app is notified and must respond prior to a change being allowed to > proceed). > > These form a hierarchy: if the OS/filesystem provides Lease (3), the > app can use it in place of Coherent (2) and Queued (1). If the > OS/filesystem provides Lease (3) or Coherent (2), the app can use > either in place of Queued (1). > > All of these have different, useful applications. GUIs like Nautilus > are happy with Queued (1). For content indexers, it depends how you > want them to behave, and how up to date they should seem. For > something which computes things from file contents or attributes, such > as (possible beneficiaries) any scripting language, Make, Git, JIT > system, or web templating system, it needs Coherent (2) notifications; > Queued (1) is not reliable for caching. Lease (3) is potentially > useful for distributed databases. > > For CIFS/SMB it looks like all three could be implemented, in > different ways. I'm not sure if NFSv4 can do Queued, but I think with > delegations it can do Coherent and Lease. > > For local filesystems, I think Linux provides Coherent but I haven't > looked closely. If not, it provides Queued. > > Al Viro said (long ago) apps should not rely upon timely > dnotify/inotify events, and therefore should not use them for > consistent app caching. However, timely delivery isn't required, > what's required is that reading the inotify descriptor (or reading a > flag set by delivery of the dnotify signal / inotify SIGIO?) will > definitely return an event if the corresponding file change has become > observable by other means. It is about ordering guarantees. > > If there is a revamp of the fsnotify code for networking especially, > please at least have a little think about the different event delivery > models and what apps can expect, when which semantics to support. The > different models are each useful, and may involve different parts of > the networked filesystem protocol. > CIFS has a call that tells the server to notify the client when a directory changes (NT_TRANSACT_NOTIFY_CHANGE). This, in principle would allow us to implement a subset of inotify/dnotify across the network. I'm not sure which kind we'd be able to implement (probably "queued at best). I wholeheartedly agree however that this is something that we should implement with care. What little code there was in place for this is now mostly gone. The only thing that remains is this kthread that currently serves no purpose. When/if we do this, we'll want to reimplement all of this from the ground up anyway.
What worries me most about losing the ability to add directory change notification in the future (without putting the entry point back) the lack of directory change notification is quite visible to the user when an open directory object on the desktop (gnome or kde) does not automatically refresh within a few seconds as files are added on the remote system (or on another client). The old cifs implementation was broken (partially implemented) but it was "dead code" so was harmless (it required configuring with CONFIG_CIFS_EXPERIMENTAL and turning on a run time flag in /proc/fs/cifs to enable it) but it might not have been too bad to finish the implementation. On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:07 PM, Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org> wrote: > Steve French wrote: >> We really need to revisit the dnotify/inotify code ... the SMB spec >> lists what the protocol allows, but AFAIK no one has had a chance to >> prototype this. It is among the highest priority features still >> needed to implement in cifs. >> >> As we have talked about before, dnotify (or inotify) is even more >> useful for network file systems than local file systems (since the >> alternative, polling, is too expensive to do over the network). CIFS >> and SMB2 protocols, unlike NFS, has a mechanism to handle dnotify, but >> mapping it to the VFS has not been investigated sufficiently > > I think NFSv4 can do it with delegations, although the exact semantics > an app could rely on would be different. > > There are several different kinds of notify that apps could use for > different purposes: 1. Queued (an event is posted after a change, will > eventually reach the app). 2. Coherent (the app can ask "any > notifications for me" and if the answer is no, it can be sure that an > attribute/data read issued prior to asking would have yielded what the > app already cached; a sort of app cache validation). 3. Lease (the > app is notified and must respond prior to a change being allowed to > proceed). > > These form a hierarchy: if the OS/filesystem provides Lease (3), the > app can use it in place of Coherent (2) and Queued (1). If the > OS/filesystem provides Lease (3) or Coherent (2), the app can use > either in place of Queued (1). > > All of these have different, useful applications. GUIs like Nautilus > are happy with Queued (1). For content indexers, it depends how you > want them to behave, and how up to date they should seem. For > something which computes things from file contents or attributes, such > as (possible beneficiaries) any scripting language, Make, Git, JIT > system, or web templating system, it needs Coherent (2) notifications; > Queued (1) is not reliable for caching. Lease (3) is potentially > useful for distributed databases. > > For CIFS/SMB it looks like all three could be implemented, in > different ways. I'm not sure if NFSv4 can do Queued, but I think with > delegations it can do Coherent and Lease. > > For local filesystems, I think Linux provides Coherent but I haven't > looked closely. If not, it provides Queued. > > Al Viro said (long ago) apps should not rely upon timely > dnotify/inotify events, and therefore should not use them for > consistent app caching. However, timely delivery isn't required, > what's required is that reading the inotify descriptor (or reading a > flag set by delivery of the dnotify signal / inotify SIGIO?) will > definitely return an event if the corresponding file change has become > observable by other means. It is about ordering guarantees. > > If there is a revamp of the fsnotify code for networking especially, > please at least have a little think about the different event delivery > models and what apps can expect, when which semantics to support. The > different models are each useful, and may involve different parts of > the networked filesystem protocol. > > -- Jamie >
On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 21:32:09 -0600 "Steve French" <smfrench@gmail.com> wrote: > What worries me most about losing the ability to add directory change > notification in the future (without putting the entry point back) the > lack of directory change notification is quite visible to the user > when an open directory object on the desktop (gnome or kde) does not > automatically refresh within a few seconds as files are added on the > remote system (or on another client). > > The old cifs implementation was broken (partially implemented) but it > was "dead code" so was harmless (it required configuring with > CONFIG_CIFS_EXPERIMENTAL and turning on a run time flag in > /proc/fs/cifs to enable it) but it might not have been too bad to > finish the implementation. > This patch doesn't remove any capability of the current code. It just gets rid of this kthread that doesn't do anything useful. There's nothing stopping us from putting it back later once we have working dir notification, but until then it's just doing unnecessary wakeups.
On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 09:32:09PM -0600, Steve French wrote: > What worries me most about losing the ability to add directory change > notification in the future (without putting the entry point back) the If you put that one entry point back, please make sure to reserve a CVE number first. > lack of directory change notification is quite visible to the user > when an open directory object on the desktop (gnome or kde) does not > automatically refresh within a few seconds as files are added on the > remote system (or on another client). > > The old cifs implementation was broken (partially implemented) but it > was "dead code" so was harmless (it required configuring with > CONFIG_CIFS_EXPERIMENTAL and turning on a run time flag in > /proc/fs/cifs to enable it) but it might not have been too bad to > finish the implementation. The interface for it had been inherently broken. Whatever you do with the cifs side, you'd have to change the VFS side. Might as well start from scratch. Again, *any* experimenting with that crap will have to start with figuring out what to do with destruction of these suckers.
Jeff Layton wrote: > CIFS has a call that tells the server to notify the client when a > directory changes (NT_TRANSACT_NOTIFY_CHANGE). This, in principle would > allow us to implement a subset of inotify/dnotify across the network. > I'm not sure which kind we'd be able to implement (probably "queued > at best). With oplocks you can implement "lease" (and therefore "coherent") for file data reads and writes, at least. I'm not sure if it also covers attributes and directory operations. You would use NT_TRANSACT_NOTIFY_CHANGE for "queued" when possible, because it's much cheaper and intended for this, although you could use oplocks (expensively) for this too. -- Jamie
Jeff Layton wrote: > > I think NFSv4 can do it with delegations, although the exact semantics > > an app could rely on would be different. > > I don't think delegations help here since it's entirely up to the > server whether to grant one or not. I've only given inotify/dnotify a > drive-by look, but I'm pretty sure you'd want the client to be able to > set up events to monitor. The notify API needs the ability to report, in general, whether you'll get notify events from a particular filesystem / file / directory / whatever-condition anyway. And also whether you get events for all (remote) changes, or just local changes. You might as well _try_ to get a delegate, and if you fail, tell the caller that it won't receive notifications on this file and will have to poll - just like most other remote filesystems. -- Jamie
It would be really helpful if we could get directory delegations over CIFS (or SMB2) so we could avoid worrying about notifications of directory change events, but in practice it seems like the performance impact (to Windows servers, Samba servers, and various NAS filers) of the existing "multi-shot" directory change notifications have not been too bad. File change notifications are helpful in some environments, and with leases (oplocks) don't even have to be sent to the server but it seems like directory change notifications (adding/deleting files in a directory) is the more "user visible" Interesting the notify code was originally added to Linux to support Samba (at Tridge's request many years ago) which needed it to handle Windows (client) explorer desktop (which calls the Windows equivalent notify) On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 7:41 PM, Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org> wrote: > Jeff Layton wrote: >> > I think NFSv4 can do it with delegations, although the exact semantics >> > an app could rely on would be different. >> >> I don't think delegations help here since it's entirely up to the >> server whether to grant one or not. I've only given inotify/dnotify a >> drive-by look, but I'm pretty sure you'd want the client to be able to >> set up events to monitor. > > The notify API needs the ability to report, in general, whether you'll > get notify events from a particular filesystem / file / directory / > whatever-condition anyway. And also whether you get events for all > (remote) changes, or just local changes. > > You might as well _try_ to get a delegate, and if you fail, tell the > caller that it won't receive notifications on this file and will have > to poll - just like most other remote filesystems. > > -- Jamie >
diff --git a/fs/cifs/cifsfs.c b/fs/cifs/cifsfs.c index 13ea532..5626af2 100644 --- a/fs/cifs/cifsfs.c +++ b/fs/cifs/cifsfs.c @@ -66,9 +66,6 @@ unsigned int sign_CIFS_PDUs = 1; extern struct task_struct *oplockThread; /* remove sparse warning */ struct task_struct *oplockThread = NULL; /* extern struct task_struct * dnotifyThread; remove sparse warning */ -#ifdef CONFIG_CIFS_EXPERIMENTAL -static struct task_struct *dnotifyThread = NULL; -#endif static const struct super_operations cifs_super_ops; unsigned int CIFSMaxBufSize = CIFS_MAX_MSGSIZE; module_param(CIFSMaxBufSize, int, 0); @@ -1039,34 +1036,6 @@ static int cifs_oplock_thread(void *dummyarg) return 0; } -#ifdef CONFIG_CIFS_EXPERIMENTAL -static int cifs_dnotify_thread(void *dummyarg) -{ - struct list_head *tmp; - struct TCP_Server_Info *server; - - do { - if (try_to_freeze()) - continue; - set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE); - schedule_timeout(15*HZ); - /* check if any stuck requests that need - to be woken up and wakeq so the - thread can wake up and error out */ - read_lock(&cifs_tcp_ses_lock); - list_for_each(tmp, &cifs_tcp_ses_list) { - server = list_entry(tmp, struct TCP_Server_Info, - tcp_ses_list); - if (atomic_read(&server->inFlight)) - wake_up_all(&server->response_q); - } - read_unlock(&cifs_tcp_ses_lock); - } while (!kthread_should_stop()); - - return 0; -} -#endif - static int __init init_cifs(void) { @@ -1143,21 +1112,8 @@ init_cifs(void) goto out_unregister_dfs_key_type; } -#ifdef CONFIG_CIFS_EXPERIMENTAL - dnotifyThread = kthread_run(cifs_dnotify_thread, NULL, "cifsdnotifyd"); - if (IS_ERR(dnotifyThread)) { - rc = PTR_ERR(dnotifyThread); - cERROR(1, ("error %d create dnotify thread", rc)); - goto out_stop_oplock_thread; - } -#endif - return 0; -#ifdef CONFIG_CIFS_EXPERIMENTAL - out_stop_oplock_thread: -#endif - kthread_stop(oplockThread); out_unregister_dfs_key_type: #ifdef CONFIG_CIFS_DFS_UPCALL unregister_key_type(&key_type_dns_resolver); @@ -1195,9 +1151,6 @@ exit_cifs(void) cifs_destroy_inodecache(); cifs_destroy_mids(); cifs_destroy_request_bufs(); -#ifdef CONFIG_CIFS_EXPERIMENTAL - kthread_stop(dnotifyThread); -#endif kthread_stop(oplockThread); }
Al Viro recently removed the dir_notify code from the kernel along with the CIFS code that used it. We can also get rid of the dnotify thread as well. In actuality, it never had anything to do with dir_notify anyway. All it did was unnecessarily wake up all the tasks waiting on the response queues every 15s. Previously that happened to prevent tasks from hanging indefinitely when the server went unresponsive, but we put those to sleep with proper timeouts now so there's no reason to keep this around. Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com> --- fs/cifs/cifsfs.c | 47 ----------------------------------------------- 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 47 deletions(-)