From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Oct 27 10:37:48 2004
Return-Path: <owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id B2E0216A4CE; Wed, 27 Oct 2004 10:37:48 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (critter.freebsd.dk [212.242.86.163])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 1A4F243D54; Wed, 27 Oct 2004 10:37:48 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk)
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by critter.freebsd.dk (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id i9RAbkmh071112;
	Wed, 27 Oct 2004 12:37:46 +0200 (CEST)
	(envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk)
To: Don Lewis <truckman@FreeBSD.org>
From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 27 Oct 2004 03:19:52 PDT."
             <200410271019.i9RAJqTi020328@gw.catspoiler.org> 
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 12:37:46 +0200
Message-ID: <71111.1098873466@critter.freebsd.dk>
Sender: phk@critter.freebsd.dk
cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org
cc: src-committers@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 
X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree <cvs-all.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all>,
	<mailto:cvs-all-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/cvs-all>
List-Post: <mailto:cvs-all@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cvs-all-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all>,
	<mailto:cvs-all-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 10:37:48 -0000

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.