From owner-freebsd-fs Wed Jul 10 23:02:29 1996 Return-Path: owner-fs Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id XAA19340 for fs-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jul 1996 23:02:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from parkplace.cet.co.jp (parkplace.cet.co.jp [202.32.64.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id XAA19332 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 1996 23:02:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (michaelh@localhost) by parkplace.cet.co.jp (8.7.5/CET-v2.1) with SMTP id GAA10311 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 1996 06:02:24 GMT Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 15:02:24 +0900 (JST) From: Michael Hancock Reply-To: Michael Hancock To: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Fixing Union_mounts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-fs@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk 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