Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2010 16:39:47 +0200 From: Attilio Rao <attilio@freebsd.org> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> Cc: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org>, Giovanni Trematerra <giovanni.trematerra@gmail.com>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Syncer rewriting Message-ID: <i2w3bbf2fe11004180739q8f802672l20f3b3fdd6a893a@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <9889.1271574610@critter.freebsd.dk> References: <F335207A-4AE3-4993-8CC7-16CCEE425BC4@samsco.org> <9889.1271574610@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
2010/4/18 Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>: > In message <F335207A-4AE3-4993-8CC7-16CCEE425BC4@samsco.org>, Scott Long writes > : >>On Apr 16, 2010, at 2:23 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > >>It's been 5-6 (7?) years since you invented the bufobj, but I still = >>haven't seen >>anything in GEOM use it as you suggest. > > Pretty much because we need to give the syncer the lobotomy Attilio > is current in the middle of. Being more precise, what kind of support do you need for completing this? Do you think do you need all the standard syncer logic we have now to be replicated for bufobj? I have the impression that this is very much vnode specific (for example, also the rush/speedup mechanism has meaning mostly in terms of pages held by the vnode). Do you think, looking at the patch, that the offered support is enough with having it remplemented efficiently and only bufobj specific? Thanks, Attilio -- Peace can only be achieved by understanding - A. Einstein
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?i2w3bbf2fe11004180739q8f802672l20f3b3fdd6a893a>