Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 10:28:27 -0700 (PDT) From: Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> Cc: Kirk McKusick <mckusick@mckusick.com>, Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>, Rik van Riel <riel@conectiva.com.br>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, David Xu <bsddiy@21cn.com> Subject: Re: vm balance Message-ID: <200104171728.f3HHSRY94888@earth.backplane.com> References: <18021.987493190@critter>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
:When I first heard you say this I thought you were off your rockers,
:but gradually I have come to think that you may be right.
:
:I think the task will be easier if we get the vnode/buf relationship
:untangled a bit first.
:
:I may also pay off to take vnodes out of diskoperations entirely before
:we try the merge.
Yes, I agree. The vnode/VM-object issue is minor compared to
the vnode/buf/io issue.
:>Under the old name cache implementation, decreasing
:>the number of vnodes was slow and hard. With the current name cache
:>implementation, decreasing the number of vnodes would be easy.
:
:Actually the main problem is that NFS relies on vnodes never being
:freed to hold "soft references" using "struct vnode * + v_id).
:
:--
:Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
I don't think NFS relies on vnodes never being freed. The worst that
should happen is that NFS might need to do a LOOKUP. I haven't had a
chance to look at the namei/vnode patch set yet but as long as a
reasonable number of vnodes remain cached NFS shouldn't be effected
too much.
-Matt
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
help
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200104171728.f3HHSRY94888>