Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 22:13:26 +1000 From: Stephen McKay <syssgm@detir.qld.gov.au> To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Cc: syssgm@detir.qld.gov.au, dyson@iquest.net, dillon@apollo.backplane.com, julian@whistle.com Subject: Re: inode / exec_map interlock ? (follow up) Message-ID: <199902161213.WAA28362@nymph.detir.qld.gov.au> In-Reply-To: <199902160410.XAA00350@y.dyson.net> from "John S. Dyson" at "Mon, 15 Feb 1999 23:10:25 -0500" References: <199902160410.XAA00350@y.dyson.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Ignoring all mention of ego and other personal disagreements, I offer my view. Periodically I throw myself into the VM system, barely make it up to speed, fix a bug or two (if I'm lucky), and then the pace of change puts me out of the running again. On Monday, 15th February 1999, "John S. Dyson" wrote: >I don't agree that the code is easier to read. Perhaps I know the >structure of the code, and understand how the MACH VM system works. >However, in order to understand code, I don't have to rewrite sections >of it, changing things while recoding. >Too much energy is being spent on an expensive "indent" process. I find the code much easier to read now. It takes me less time to do my VM code catch-up sprint. I think the expensive indent process is well worth it, and applaud Matt's efforts. In the long run, I think it will be cheap, rather than expensive. >Yep, but I don't want to see FreeBSD destroyed with hackery. This is a danger, but with the code becoming easier to understand, I expect that changes that are performance damaging will be repaired. Some small errors have already been reverted. Others will need to be first recognised, then deliberately repaired, as below: In a separate message on Monday, 15th February 1999, "John S. Dyson" wrote: >Are you blocking on excessively large numbers of output requests? You >know *exactly* the issue at hand, and it has to do with the backpressure >needed to keep the pageout daemon from doing an evil nasty on all of the >pages in the system. The pagedaemon on a test machine of mine used to spend much time waiting on "swpfre". Now, under 4.0, the paging rate has shot up (about 2x as a guess) and it is much less responsive. Of course it has only 16Mb of ram, and I thrash it. But I favour John's view that the new swap pager has a deficiency that must be rectified before it can be considered better (in all cases) than the previous version. Stephen. 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?199902161213.WAA28362>