Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 01:31:26 +0000 (GMT) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> To: dillon@apollo.backplane.com (Matthew Dillon) Cc: dfr@nlsystems.com, tlambert@primenet.com, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Panic in FFS/4.0 as of yesterday Message-ID: <199902240131.SAA24606@usr09.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <199902220932.BAA29386@apollo.backplane.com> from "Matthew Dillon" at Feb 22, 99 01:32:25 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> I don't think B_EXPIDITE could ever be made to work well. Why not limit > the number of async I/O write operations allowed to be in-progress at any > given moment for ops run by the syncer, swapper, or flushdirtybufs?. > Either on a vnode-by-vnode or a mount-by-mount basis? I do a poor-man's > version of this for the swapper. At least then the hacks would be > concentrated together rather then strewn all over the codebase. The > write queueing problem seems to be quite general in nature, which means > that the solution should not be to have to hack each and every device > that might do I/O ( aka UFS in this case ). Mostly, you don't want to do this because it destroys the reason for wanting to mount the thing async in the first place. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. 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?199902240131.SAA24606>