From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Sep 20 18:32:02 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 460A61065672; Mon, 20 Sep 2010 18:32:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from avg@freebsd.org) Received: from citadel.icyb.net.ua (citadel.icyb.net.ua [212.40.38.140]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBC1B8FC1B; Mon, 20 Sep 2010 18:31:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from odyssey.starpoint.kiev.ua (alpha-e.starpoint.kiev.ua [212.40.38.101]) by citadel.icyb.net.ua (8.8.8p3/ICyb-2.3exp) with ESMTP id VAA17080; Mon, 20 Sep 2010 21:31:56 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from avg@freebsd.org) Message-ID: <4C97A89B.9070806@freebsd.org> Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 21:31:55 +0300 From: Andriy Gapon User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD amd64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20100909 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jeff Roberson References: <4C93236B.4050906@freebsd.org> <4C935F56.4030903@freebsd.org> <4C95C804.1010701@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Andre Oppermann , Jeff Roberson , Robert Watson , freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: zfs + uma X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 18:32:02 -0000 on 19/09/2010 11:27 Jeff Roberson said the following: > On Sun, 19 Sep 2010, Andriy Gapon wrote: > >> on 19/09/2010 01:16 Jeff Roberson said the following: >>> Additionally we could make a last ditch flush mechanism that runs on each cpu in >>> turn and flushes some or all of the buckets in per-cpu caches. Presently that is >>> not done due to synchronization issues. It can't be done from a central place. >>> It could be done with a callout mechanism or a for loop that binds to each core >>> in succession. >> >> I like all of the tree above approaches. >> The last one is a bit hard to implement, the first two seem easier. > > All the last one requires is a loop calling sched_bind() on each available cpu. Something like cache_drain() but with sched_bind() in the loop? critical_enter() would be probably also needed to avoid preemption and conflict while acting on cache buckets? -- Andriy Gapon