From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Sep 28 02:30:24 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 518F96BA for ; Sun, 28 Sep 2014 02:30:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp1.multiplay.co.uk (smtp1.multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.35]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1559010C for ; Sun, 28 Sep 2014 02:30:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp1.multiplay.co.uk (Postfix, from userid 65534) id ECF9D20E7088F; Sun, 28 Sep 2014 02:30:22 +0000 (UTC) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.multiplay.co.uk X-Spam-Level: *** X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.1 required=8.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DOS_OE_TO_MX, FSL_HELO_NON_FQDN_1,RDNS_DYNAMIC,STOX_REPLY_TYPE,URIBL_BLACK autolearn=no version=3.3.1 Received: from r2d2 (82-69-141-170.dsl.in-addr.zen.co.uk [82.69.141.170]) by smtp1.multiplay.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 612FE20E7088B; Sun, 28 Sep 2014 02:30:21 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <0EAA931C1DCF4897A45D86C7CBDCA11C@multiplay.co.uk> From: "Steven Hartland" To: "Bryan Venteicher" References: Subject: Re: Change uma_mtx to rwlock Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2014 03:30:16 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="UTF-8"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2014 02:30:24 -0000 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bryan Venteicher" > On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 8:42 PM, Steven Hartland > wrote: > >> Out of interest does that include ZFS and its UMA zones, as we're currently >> investigating issues around this. >> >> > Yes, I believe this would include ZFS's zones too It would but I was more curious as it if you had seen the delay specifically on the ZFS zone or if it was other zones which triggered the issue for you? Regards Steve