[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       linux-fsdevel
Subject:    Re: [LSF/MM TOPIC] Compounding support in CIFS.KO
From:       ronnie sahlberg <ronniesahlberg () gmail ! com>
Date:       2018-01-31 22:22:03
Message-ID: CAN05THS3tGUY=ncrAoB+9yt=rPQJy4Zrb_1FvA=fK3q-pwNMdg () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 8:13 AM, Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com> wrote:
>
>
>> On Jan 31, 2018, at 5:03 PM, Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 06:23:03AM +1000, ronnie sahlberg wrote:
>>> Compounding support for cifs.ko
>>>
>>> In CIFS.KO we are currently adding compounding support for SMB2/3.
>>> As SMB* is a very chatty protocol which likes to do open/query/close a LOT
>>> compounding support to wrap all three operations inside a single round trip
>>> can have a significant performance boost to meta data intensive workloads.
>>>
>>> In this talk I will talk about the challenges I faced and what previous design
>>> decisions in cifs.ko that made this very hard and how I refactored the design.
>>>
>>> I will also talk about the current status of these patches as well as give a
>>> live demonstration of compounding in action.
>>
>> I think all of these things are worthwhile and stand to improve
>> the implementation a lot.  Are they of interest to other filesystem
>> developers?  Are there VFS changes which would help make compounding
>> easier?  Or is this only of interest to other CIFS people, in which case
>> this might not be the best use of a slot at LSFMM ...
>
> This is in my area of interest also.
>
> However, my understanding of LSF/MM is that this is not a "stand up
> and give a status or implementation experience report" kind of event.
> It's more of a "I have this specific itch that I need to get some
> help with." None of the above proposal strikes me as very specific,
> and a CIFS-centric talk would likely be unappealing to even most of
> the attendees of the Filesystems track.
>
> Can the proposed topic be rephrased as a focused discussion of what
> work needs to be moved forward, what decisions need to be made, and
> so on? Otherwise, we should move this topic to a network filesystems
> BoF or to the corridor track, IMHO.
>

I think you are right.
The topic of cifs compounding is only really interesting to cifs folks and
not many others.
While other filesystems such as NFSv4 has compounding too, the way compounding
works in cifs is different enough that there is little meaningful
overlap between the two.

It is therefore probably not suitable for lsf/mm.


Please disregard this proposal.
It might be more suitable to just have ad-hoc informal talks between
the cifs folks at the event
than a scheduled topic.


regards
Ronnie Sahlberg
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]