From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Apr 17 10:28:42 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from earth.backplane.com (earth-nat-cw.backplane.com [208.161.114.67]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEC8A37B440 for ; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 10:28:38 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dillon@earth.backplane.com) Received: (from dillon@localhost) by earth.backplane.com (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f3HHSRY94888; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 10:28:27 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dillon) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 10:28:27 -0700 (PDT) From: Matt Dillon Message-Id: <200104171728.f3HHSRY94888@earth.backplane.com> To: Poul-Henning Kamp Cc: Kirk McKusick , Julian Elischer , Rik van Riel , freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, David Xu Subject: Re: vm balance References: <18021.987493190@critter> Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG :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