Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2010 16:49:36 -0600 From: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> Cc: Attilio Rao <attilio@freebsd.org>, Giovanni Trematerra <giovanni.trematerra@gmail.com>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Syncer rewriting Message-ID: <F335207A-4AE3-4993-8CC7-16CCEE425BC4@samsco.org> In-Reply-To: <29917.1271406183@critter.freebsd.dk> References: <29917.1271406183@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Apr 16, 2010, at 2:23 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >=20 >=20 >> - The standard syncer may be further improved getting rid of the >> bufobj. It should actually handle a list of vnodes rather than a list >> of bufobj. However similar optimizations may be done after the patch >> is ready to enter the tree. >=20 > That would be the wrong direction: we need the bufobj because for = instance > a RAID5 geom module does not have a vnode for the parity data. >=20 > If you force the syncer to only work on vnodes, then we need a = parallel > mechanism for non-filesystem disk users. It's been 5-6 (7?) years since you invented the bufobj, but I still = haven't seen anything in GEOM use it as you suggest. You used to have a saying about premature optimization... I'd like to see Attilio's work move forward = despite this. Scott
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?F335207A-4AE3-4993-8CC7-16CCEE425BC4>