Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 15:02:24 +0900 (JST) From: Michael Hancock <michaelh@cet.co.jp> To: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Fixing Union_mounts Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.93.960711144514.10112B-100000@parkplace.cet.co.jp> In-Reply-To: <Pine.SV4.3.93.960711113222.8671C-100000@parkplace.cet.co.jp>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Sorry, I can't shutup. I'm fuzzy on 4), and will be until I read the sources more. I just want to backup and talk about the design objectives. The fathers of 4.4 thought having a global vnode pool vs. partitioning the pools per fs was a win for kernel memory management when several different file systems are in use. Your design goals seems to be an SMP perspective which means we need to think differently to understand what your saying. If we step back and look at this from the point of view of the 4.4 implementers, what are the consequences of moving away from a global vnode pool? What are the wins? -mike hancock
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.SV4.3.93.960711144514.10112B-100000>