Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 11:46:33 -0800 (PST) From: Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com> To: Don Lewis <Don.Lewis@tsc.tdk.com> Cc: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>, Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com>, dfr@nlsystems.com, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Panic in FFS/4.0 as of yesterday Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.95.990222114340.7463A-100000@current1.whistle.com> In-Reply-To: <199902221423.GAA28922@salsa.gv.tsc.tdk.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
softupdates already "kinda" doesn this.. it queues data writes at one point in the future and directory writes at a different point in the future. I believe that data writes must be completed before inode writes which must be completed before directory writes. If they are not the the dependencies will FORCE that ordering. The reason to preschedule the different actions is to make it all happen in the right order anyhow, so that the dependency tracking is a big NOP. On Mon, 22 Feb 1999, Don Lewis wrote: > On Feb 20, 10:42pm, Terry Lambert wrote: > } Subject: Re: Panic in FFS/4.0 as of yesterday > > } I think the way to "fix" this is to have two queue insertion points, > } and insert directory writes as far forward as you can (some pigs are > } more equal than others). This would ensure short duration for > } directory operations. > > What about directory reads? I think the same problem will occur if > they have long latencies. > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.95.990222114340.7463A-100000>