Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2014 18:16:53 +0300 From: Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org> To: Steven Hartland <smh@FreeBSD.org>, Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org> Cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org, John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org>, Alan Cox <alc@rice.edu>, svn-src-all@FreeBSD.org, Dmitry Morozovsky <marck@rinet.ru>, "Matthew D. Fuller" <fullermd@over-yonder.net>, svn-src-head@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r270759 - in head/sys: cddl/compat/opensolaris/kern cddl/compat/opensolaris/sys cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs vm Message-ID: <540730E5.1080206@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <54072C8E.7030501@FreeBSD.org> References: <201408281950.s7SJo90I047213@svn.freebsd.org> <E0F163ECBF5E407F99AFDB18FAB05C58@multiplay.co.uk> <39211177.i8nn9sHiCx@overcee.wemm.org> <201409021201.15967.jhb@freebsd.org> <5405FD2C.8000901@rice.edu> <B0BE99C514794C24A4D68D4CB12042E1@multiplay.co.uk> <54060D1B.6020700@rice.edu> <774F8EEE96EB483DA8ACF533CF7C23F3@multiplay.co.uk> <54062268.9060603@rice.edu> <169C94ED141B435BACEADB04A4824717@multiplay.co.uk> <54070421.9030200@FreeBSD.org> <7FA917F9BB6F45FA84D8408C13359748@multiplay.co.uk> <54072C8E.7030501@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
on 03/09/2014 17:58 Andriy Gapon said the following: > on 03/09/2014 15:17 Steven Hartland said the following: >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andriy Gapon" <avg@FreeBSD.org> >> >>> on 03/09/2014 11:09 Steven Hartland said the following: >>>> I'm looking to MFC this change so wanted to check if >>>> anyone had an final feedback / objections? >>> >>> I think that your changes went in a bit prematurely (little review), so perhaps >>> MFC would be premature as well. >> >> Its a change which really needs to make it into 10.1 IMO > > I think that this is the arguable point. > As I've mentioned before I have not noticed, perhaps through the fault of my > own, any reports that users need this change after Alan's pagedaemon fix(es). > Also, there is no confirmation yet that after this change ARC does not give up > its buffers too easily. > >> due to its impact on users so I don't really want to hold >> off too long. >> >> If anyone has any substantiated reason to then off course >> I'll hold off. Based on our parallel conversation I feel a need to clarify my position. The commit in question has multiple changes in it: 1. removal of KVA check, which was later correctly restored for i386 2. addition of DTrace probes 3. zfs_arc_free_target check and all the support code for it So, #1 plus later fixes is obviously correct. #2 is useful and I like it. #3 is what I have great doubts about. All of what I said in the previous emails applies to #3 exclusively. -- Andriy Gapon
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?540730E5.1080206>