Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 12:37:46 +0200 From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> To: Don Lewis <truckman@FreeBSD.org> Cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern vfs_subr.c src/sys/sys buf.h bufobj.h vnode.h Message-ID: <71111.1098873466@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 27 Oct 2004 03:19:52 PDT." <200410271019.i9RAJqTi020328@gw.catspoiler.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <200410271019.i9RAJqTi020328@gw.catspoiler.org>, Don Lewis writes: >On 27 Oct, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > >> I am still not convinced that even having the generic syncer is a >> good idea. I think it would make a lot more sense to park a kthread >> on each mountpoint to act as syncer for that mountpoint. And then >> _maybe_ have a bufobj method that says "reduce your footprint" in >> some sort of way to keep the global balance. > >I think this idea has a lot of merit. [...] There are man unknowns and at least I need to do some prototyping to see where I end up if I do it one way or another. For instance: If the syncer is something the filesystem starts at its own discretion, there wouldn't be a need for a syncer for R/O filesystems. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?71111.1098873466>