Thanks. I was using flock (BSD locking) and I think the problem should be solved if I move my application to use POSIX locks.
And any option to avoid processes waiting indefinitely to free pages from NFS requests waiting on unresponsive NFS server? Thanks --Chakri On 9/21/07, Trond Myklebust <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 2007-09-20 at 20:12 -0700, Chakri n wrote: > > Thanks Trond, for clarifying this for me. > > > > I have seen similar behavior when a remote NFS server is not > > available. Many processes wait end up waiting in nfs_release_page. So, > > what will happen if the remote server is not available, > > nfs_release_page cannot free the memory since it waits on rpc request > > to complete, which never completes and processes wait in there for > > ever? > > > > And unfortunately in my case, I cannot use "mount --bind". I want to > > use the same file system from two different nodes, and I want file & > > record locking to be consistent. The only way to make sure locking is > > consistent is to use loopback NFS on 1 host and NFS mount the same > > file system on other nodes, so that NFS server ensures file & record > > locking to be consistent. Is there any alternative to this? > > > > Is it possible or any efforts to integrate ext3 or other local file > > systems locking & network file system locking, so that user can use > > "mount --bind" on local host and NFS mount on remote nodes, but file & > > record locking will be consistent between both the nodes? > > Could you be a bit more specific? Is the problem that your application > is using BSD locks (flock()) instead of POSIX locks? > > Cheers > Trond > - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
