Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1998 11:13:53 +0900 (JST) From: Michael Hancock <michaelh@cet.co.jp> To: Cejka Rudolf <xcejka00@dcse.fee.vutbr.cz> Cc: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: VFSs in -current: Are they working? Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.95.980602110112.23515A-100000@parkplace.cet.co.jp> In-Reply-To: <199805281757.RAA20583@sts.dcse.fee.vutbr.cz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 28 May 1998, Cejka Rudolf wrote: > > I'm reading news about -current since April and it seems to me that nobody > has problems with virtual filesystems. And what about null layer & kern/6465? > (Does anybody use null layer?) Or is this only my problem on my -current box? > Should I write more information about kern/6465? > > I'm sorry, but I don't know, where I may search this critical bug. > In VFS? Null layer looks too simple... > In VM space? Are there still VM bugs? I'm working on fixing layering violations which will improve things. The next problem which is more serious for is name/object coherence. Operations like mmap, read, write, getpages, and putpages can get incoherent because they will operate on different objects. One solution is to proxy everything down to the underlying object. One pie in the sky solution is to separate the notion of who is the cacher and who is the pager. Then get/putpages would accept a cachevp and a pagervp. You would then have to write a sophisticated cachemgr to orchestrate everything including data pages and other object attributes. If you want to find papers on these topics then search the net for things like filesystems, the spring project, and heidemann. Regards, Mike > Any suggestions? (Please...) > > Thanks. > 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.SV4.3.95.980602110112.23515A-100000>