From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Mar 5 06:38:58 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [8.8.178.115]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD1C736F; Tue, 5 Mar 2013 06:38:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from phk@phk.freebsd.dk) Received: from phk.freebsd.dk (phk.freebsd.dk [130.225.244.222]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AF45306; Tue, 5 Mar 2013 06:38:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (critter.freebsd.dk [192.168.61.3]) by phk.freebsd.dk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23F6389EAF; Tue, 5 Mar 2013 06:38:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by critter.freebsd.dk (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r256ct1Y028306; Tue, 5 Mar 2013 06:38:55 GMT (envelope-from phk@phk.freebsd.dk) To: Don Lewis Subject: Re: access to hard drives is "blocked" by writes to a flash drive In-reply-to: <201303050519.r255JbAu012422@gw.catspoiler.org> From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" References: <201303050519.r255JbAu012422@gw.catspoiler.org> Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2013 06:38:55 +0000 Message-ID: <28305.1362465535@critter.freebsd.dk> Cc: kostikbel@gmail.com, deeptech71@gmail.com, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org, peter@rulingia.com, ian@FreeBSD.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2013 06:38:58 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 -------- In message <201303050519.r255JbAu012422@gw.catspoiler.org>, Don Lewis writes: >That's been my opinion for a long time as well, though I think it would >be better to have one thread per device to avoid syncer threads for >multiple partitions on the same drive all contending for the same >actuator. That would require that you move the syncer to the bottom of GEOM and initiate syncs by upcalls to the consumers above. But how does that work in the case of a mirrored drive ? Doesn't sound like a good idea to me. >Multiple threads would allow us to better exploit the parallelism >provided by the hardware and prevent a slow drive from impacting the >performance of the other drives in the system. It would also allow us to have different sync-intervals for different filesystems. >> I'm not sure if the syncer is untangled enough that we can have >> per mount-point threads yet, but as soon as we can, we should do that. > >I'm not aware of any fundamental issues preventing this from being >implemented, though I haven't spent much time looking at recent versions >of the code. It used to be impossible because of all the implicit locking based on pseudo-vnodes and whats-not... -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.