From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Mar 21 14:56:36 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A90AB106566B; Sun, 21 Mar 2010 14:56:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from avg@icyb.net.ua) Received: from citadel.icyb.net.ua (citadel.icyb.net.ua [212.40.38.140]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 464E08FC27; Sun, 21 Mar 2010 14:56:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from porto.topspin.kiev.ua (porto-e.starpoint.kiev.ua [212.40.38.100]) by citadel.icyb.net.ua (8.8.8p3/ICyb-2.3exp) with ESMTP id QAA00267; Sun, 21 Mar 2010 16:56:33 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from avg@icyb.net.ua) Received: from localhost.topspin.kiev.ua ([127.0.0.1]) by porto.topspin.kiev.ua with esmtp (Exim 4.34 (FreeBSD)) id 1NtMZt-000AgC-3A; Sun, 21 Mar 2010 16:56:33 +0200 Message-ID: <4BA633A0.2090108@icyb.net.ua> Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 16:56:32 +0200 From: Andriy Gapon User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20100321) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alexander Motin References: <1269109391.00231800.1269099002@10.7.7.3> <1269120182.00231865.1269108002@10.7.7.3> <1269120188.00231888.1269109203@10.7.7.3> <1269123795.00231922.1269113402@10.7.7.3> <1269130981.00231933.1269118202@10.7.7.3> <1269130986.00231939.1269119402@10.7.7.3> <1269134581.00231948.1269121202@10.7.7.3> <1269134585.00231959.1269122405@10.7.7.3> <4BA6279E.3010201@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4BA6279E.3010201@FreeBSD.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org, Ivan Voras , freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Increasing MAXPHYS X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 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: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 14:56:36 -0000 on 21/03/2010 16:05 Alexander Motin said the following: > Ivan Voras wrote: >> Hmm, it looks like it could be easy to spawn more g_* threads (and, >> barring specific class behaviour, it has a fair chance of working out of >> the box) but the incoming queue will need to also be broken up for >> greater effect. > > According to "notes", looks there is a good chance to obtain races, as > some places expect only one up and one down thread. I haven't given any deep thought to this issue, but I remember us discussing them over beer :-) I think one idea was making sure (somehow) that requests traveling over the same edge of a geom graph (in the same direction) do it using the same queue/thread. Another idea was to bring some netgraph-like optimization where some (carefully chosen) geom vertices pass requests by a direct call instead of requeuing. -- Andriy Gapon