Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 08:23:03 +0000 From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> To: Attilio Rao <attilio@freebsd.org> Cc: Giovanni Trematerra <giovanni.trematerra@gmail.com>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Syncer rewriting Message-ID: <29917.1271406183@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 15 Apr 2010 12:10:21 %2B0200." <r2r3bbf2fe11004150310w9fa12d12vebd6b7f73cc1c5c0@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <r2r3bbf2fe11004150310w9fa12d12vebd6b7f73cc1c5c0@mail.gmail.com>, At tilio Rao writes: >The syncer, meant as what we have now, becames the 'standard one' but >switches to a different model. It becames per-mount and it then gets >rid of the syncer vnode. This also helps in simplifying a lot the >locking within the syncer because now any thread is responsible only >for its own dog-food. YeeeeEEEEEHAAAAA! Go! Go! GO! >- The standard syncer may be further improved getting rid of the >bufobj. It should actually handle a list of vnodes rather than a list >of bufobj. However similar optimizations may be done after the patch >is ready to enter the tree. That would be the wrong direction: we need the bufobj because for instance a RAID5 geom module does not have a vnode for the parity data. If you force the syncer to only work on vnodes, then we need a parallel mechanism for non-filesystem disk users. -- 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.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?29917.1271406183>