From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Mar 15 14:28:33 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8653816A4D1 for ; Tue, 15 Mar 2005 14:28:33 +0000 (GMT) Received: from duchess.speedfactory.net (duchess.speedfactory.net [66.23.201.84]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C5D2743D46 for ; Tue, 15 Mar 2005 14:28:32 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from ups@tree.com) Received: (qmail 30648 invoked by uid 89); 15 Mar 2005 14:28:30 -0000 Received: from duchess.speedfactory.net (66.23.201.84) by duchess.speedfactory.net with SMTP; 15 Mar 2005 14:28:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 30623 invoked by uid 89); 15 Mar 2005 14:28:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO palm.tree.com) (66.23.216.49) by duchess.speedfactory.net with SMTP; 15 Mar 2005 14:28:30 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost.tree.com [127.0.0.1]) by palm.tree.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j2FESTw6089930; Tue, 15 Mar 2005 09:28:29 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from ups@tree.com) From: Stephan Uphoff To: Jeff Roberson In-Reply-To: <20050315003915.C20708@mail.chesapeake.net> References: <20050314213038.V20708@mail.chesapeake.net> <1110856553.29804.37784.camel@palm> <20050315003915.C20708@mail.chesapeake.net> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1110896909.29804.39143.camel@palm> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6 Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 09:28:29 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Freeing vnodes. X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 14:28:33 -0000 On Tue, 2005-03-15 at 00:39, Jeff Roberson wrote: > On Mon, 14 Mar 2005, Stephan Uphoff wrote: > > > On Mon, 2005-03-14 at 21:38, Jeff Roberson wrote: > > > I have a patch at http://www.chesapeake.net/~jroberson/freevnodes.diff > > > that allows us to start reclaiming vnodes from the free list and release > > > their memory. It also changes the semantics of wantfreevnodes, and makes > > > getnewvnode() much prettier. > > > > > > The changes attempt to keep some number of vnodes, currently 2.5% of > > > desiredvnodes, that are free in memory. Free vnodes are vnodes which > > > have no references or pages in memory. For example, if an application > > > simply stat's a vnode, it will end up on the free list at the end of the > > > operation. The algorithm that is currently in place will immediately > > > recycle these vnodes once there is enough pressure, which will cause us to > > > do a full lookup and reread the inode, etc. as soon as it is stat'd again. > > > > > > This also removes the recycling from the getnewvnode() path. Instead, it > > > is done by a new helper function that is called from vnlru_proc(). This > > > function just frees vnodes from the head of the list until we reach our > > > wantfreevnodes target. > > > > > > I haven't perf tested this yet, but I have a box that is doing a > > > buildworld with a fairly constant freevnodes count which shows that vnodes > > > are actually being uma_zfree'd. > > > > > > Comments? Anyone willing to do some perf tests for me? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Jeff > > > > Just looked at the raw diff and might have missed it - how are the > > parent directory "name" cache entries ( vnode fields v_dd, v_ddid) > > handled? > > Just as they were before, by calling cache_purge. This purges the fields of the vnode that will be recycled. I am worried about the v_dd,v_ddid fields of a directory B that has the to be released vnode A as parent. (Obviously in this case there is no namecache entry with the vnode A as the directory (nc_dvp)) Right now A is type stable - but if A is released, access to B->v_dd may cause a page fault. Stephan