Searched hist:"1 bdad606" (Results 1 – 5 of 5) sorted by relevance
| /openbmc/linux/fs/gfs2/ |
| H A D | gfs2.h | 1bdad606 Tue Jun 03 08:09:53 CDT 2008 Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@redhat.com> [GFS2] Remove remote lock dropping code
There are several reasons why this is undesirable:
1. It never happens during normal operation anyway
2. If it does happen it causes performance to be very, very poor
3. It isn't likely to solve the original problem (memory shortage
on remote DLM node) it was supposed to solve
4. It uses a bunch of arbitrary constants which are unlikely to be
correct for any particular situation and for which the tuning seems
to be a black art.
5. In an N node cluster, only 1/N of the dropped locked will actually
contribute to solving the problem on average.
So all in all we are better off without it. This also makes merging
the lock_dlm module into GFS2 a bit easier.
Signed-off-by: Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@redhat.com>
1bdad606 Tue Jun 03 08:09:53 CDT 2008 Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@redhat.com> [GFS2] Remove remote lock dropping code
There are several reasons why this is undesirable:
1. It never happens during normal operation anyway
2. If it does happen it causes performance to be very, very poor
3. It isn't likely to solve the original problem (memory shortage
on remote DLM node) it was supposed to solve
4. It uses a bunch of arbitrary constants which are unlikely to be
correct for any particular situation and for which the tuning seems
to be a black art.
5. In an N node cluster, only 1/N of the dropped locked will actually
contribute to solving the problem on average.
So all in all we are better off without it. This also makes merging
the lock_dlm module into GFS2 a bit easier.
Signed-off-by: Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@redhat.com>
|
| H A D | glock.h | 1bdad606 Tue Jun 03 08:09:53 CDT 2008 Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@redhat.com> [GFS2] Remove remote lock dropping code
There are several reasons why this is undesirable:
1. It never happens during normal operation anyway
2. If it does happen it causes performance to be very, very poor
3. It isn't likely to solve the original problem (memory shortage
on remote DLM node) it was supposed to solve
4. It uses a bunch of arbitrary constants which are unlikely to be
correct for any particular situation and for which the tuning seems
to be a black art.
5. In an N node cluster, only 1/N of the dropped locked will actually
contribute to solving the problem on average.
So all in all we are better off without it. This also makes merging
the lock_dlm module into GFS2 a bit easier.
Signed-off-by: Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@redhat.com>
1bdad606 Tue Jun 03 08:09:53 CDT 2008 Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@redhat.com> [GFS2] Remove remote lock dropping code
There are several reasons why this is undesirable:
1. It never happens during normal operation anyway
2. If it does happen it causes performance to be very, very poor
3. It isn't likely to solve the original problem (memory shortage
on remote DLM node) it was supposed to solve
4. It uses a bunch of arbitrary constants which are unlikely to be
correct for any particular situation and for which the tuning seems
to be a black art.
5. In an N node cluster, only 1/N of the dropped locked will actually
contribute to solving the problem on average.
So all in all we are better off without it. This also makes merging
the lock_dlm module into GFS2 a bit easier.
Signed-off-by: Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@redhat.com>
|
| H A D | sys.c | 1bdad606 Tue Jun 03 08:09:53 CDT 2008 Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@redhat.com> [GFS2] Remove remote lock dropping code
There are several reasons why this is undesirable:
1. It never happens during normal operation anyway
2. If it does happen it causes performance to be very, very poor
3. It isn't likely to solve the original problem (memory shortage
on remote DLM node) it was supposed to solve
4. It uses a bunch of arbitrary constants which are unlikely to be
correct for any particular situation and for which the tuning seems
to be a black art.
5. In an N node cluster, only 1/N of the dropped locked will actually
contribute to solving the problem on average.
So all in all we are better off without it. This also makes merging
the lock_dlm module into GFS2 a bit easier.
Signed-off-by: Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@redhat.com>
1bdad606 Tue Jun 03 08:09:53 CDT 2008 Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@redhat.com> [GFS2] Remove remote lock dropping code
There are several reasons why this is undesirable:
1. It never happens during normal operation anyway
2. If it does happen it causes performance to be very, very poor
3. It isn't likely to solve the original problem (memory shortage
on remote DLM node) it was supposed to solve
4. It uses a bunch of arbitrary constants which are unlikely to be
correct for any particular situation and for which the tuning seems
to be a black art.
5. In an N node cluster, only 1/N of the dropped locked will actually
contribute to solving the problem on average.
So all in all we are better off without it. This also makes merging
the lock_dlm module into GFS2 a bit easier.
Signed-off-by: Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@redhat.com>
|
| H A D | glock.c | 1bdad606 Tue Jun 03 08:09:53 CDT 2008 Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@redhat.com> [GFS2] Remove remote lock dropping code
There are several reasons why this is undesirable:
1. It never happens during normal operation anyway
2. If it does happen it causes performance to be very, very poor
3. It isn't likely to solve the original problem (memory shortage
on remote DLM node) it was supposed to solve
4. It uses a bunch of arbitrary constants which are unlikely to be
correct for any particular situation and for which the tuning seems
to be a black art.
5. In an N node cluster, only 1/N of the dropped locked will actually
contribute to solving the problem on average.
So all in all we are better off without it. This also makes merging
the lock_dlm module into GFS2 a bit easier.
Signed-off-by: Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@redhat.com>
1bdad606 Tue Jun 03 08:09:53 CDT 2008 Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@redhat.com> [GFS2] Remove remote lock dropping code
There are several reasons why this is undesirable:
1. It never happens during normal operation anyway
2. If it does happen it causes performance to be very, very poor
3. It isn't likely to solve the original problem (memory shortage
on remote DLM node) it was supposed to solve
4. It uses a bunch of arbitrary constants which are unlikely to be
correct for any particular situation and for which the tuning seems
to be a black art.
5. In an N node cluster, only 1/N of the dropped locked will actually
contribute to solving the problem on average.
So all in all we are better off without it. This also makes merging
the lock_dlm module into GFS2 a bit easier.
Signed-off-by: Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@redhat.com>
|
| H A D | ops_fstype.c | 1bdad606 Tue Jun 03 08:09:53 CDT 2008 Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@redhat.com> [GFS2] Remove remote lock dropping code
There are several reasons why this is undesirable:
1. It never happens during normal operation anyway
2. If it does happen it causes performance to be very, very poor
3. It isn't likely to solve the original problem (memory shortage
on remote DLM node) it was supposed to solve
4. It uses a bunch of arbitrary constants which are unlikely to be
correct for any particular situation and for which the tuning seems
to be a black art.
5. In an N node cluster, only 1/N of the dropped locked will actually
contribute to solving the problem on average.
So all in all we are better off without it. This also makes merging
the lock_dlm module into GFS2 a bit easier.
Signed-off-by: Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@redhat.com>
1bdad606 Tue Jun 03 08:09:53 CDT 2008 Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@redhat.com> [GFS2] Remove remote lock dropping code
There are several reasons why this is undesirable:
1. It never happens during normal operation anyway
2. If it does happen it causes performance to be very, very poor
3. It isn't likely to solve the original problem (memory shortage
on remote DLM node) it was supposed to solve
4. It uses a bunch of arbitrary constants which are unlikely to be
correct for any particular situation and for which the tuning seems
to be a black art.
5. In an N node cluster, only 1/N of the dropped locked will actually
contribute to solving the problem on average.
So all in all we are better off without it. This also makes merging
the lock_dlm module into GFS2 a bit easier.
Signed-off-by: Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@redhat.com>
|