Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 09:52:51 +0700 (ALMST) From: Boris Popov <bp@butya.kz> To: Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com> Cc: "Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@newsguy.com>, freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG, semenu@FreeBSD.ORG, tegge@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: CFR: nullfs, vm_objects and locks... (patch) Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.10.10009060941390.85119-100000@lion.butya.kz> In-Reply-To: <200009051942.MAA76219@earth.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, Matt Dillon wrote: > I agree with all of Boris's points in regards to the two major changes: > Adding VOP's to access the VM object, and integrating the vnode lock > into the vnode directly. > > There is one issue which needs to be resolved, and that is with NFS. It > is not safe to lock vnodes related to NFS, which is why the NFS VOP locking > routines always force shared locks. This problem would have to be > resolved. I think that vop_sharedlock() is compatible with proposed changes and only nfs_lookup() needs to be tweaked in order to maintain PDIRUNLOCK flag. Nevertheless, I'll test nfs case this weekend. > Boris's patches look good, though I didn't go over them with a fine-toothed > comb. I'm amazed at how clean the nullfs changes are with the new > infrastructure there to support it. I'm would very appreciate if someone who familiar with BIO/VM layer review all VOP_GETVOBJECT() invocations in the vfs_bio/vm_mmap code. > This patch involves architectural changes so I think either DG or Kirk > have to sign off on it (maybe more Kirk then DG for this since it is > filesystem related). I think Kirk will agree with it assuming the NFS > issue can be dealt with. Ok, I'll forward them a copy of original message. -- Boris Popov http://www.butya.kz/~bp/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-fs" 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.4.10.10009060941390.85119-100000>