From owner-freebsd-current Wed Jul 7 17:13:33 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from lestat.nas.nasa.gov (lestat.nas.nasa.gov [129.99.50.29]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5669C14FAC; Wed, 7 Jul 1999 17:13:17 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from thorpej@lestat.nas.nasa.gov) Received: from lestat (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lestat.nas.nasa.gov (8.8.8/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA19187; Wed, 7 Jul 1999 17:12:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199907080012.RAA19187@lestat.nas.nasa.gov> To: Julian Elischer Cc: Matthew Dillon , David Greenman , freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Heh heh, humorous lockup Reply-To: Jason Thorpe From: Jason Thorpe Date: Wed, 07 Jul 1999 17:12:53 -0700 Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Wed, 7 Jul 1999 16:55:28 -0700 (PDT) Julian Elischer wrote: > or do what Kirk wants to do and merge the VM and Vnode structures > I belive the UVM does a bit in this direction due to kirk's influence. A uvm_object is not a standalone thing in UVM. Every thing that's mappable in UVM has a uvm_object embedded in it. In the case of vnodes, a vnode contains a uvm_vnode, which in turn contains a uvm_object. This has direct performance benefits as described in both Chuck's thesis and in his USENIX paper. Now, in the case of the chs-ubc2 branch of the NetBSD source tree, which is where the unified buffer cache work is happening, there is almost no distinction between a vnode and an object. -- Jason R. Thorpe To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message