From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Sep 16 06:36:06 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B97D3106566C; Thu, 16 Sep 2010 06:36:06 +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 854B98FC0C; Thu, 16 Sep 2010 06:36:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from porto.topspin.kiev.ua (porto-e.starpoint.kiev.ua [212.40.38.100]) by citadel.icyb.net.ua (8.8.8p3/ICyb-2.3exp) with ESMTP id JAA23084; Thu, 16 Sep 2010 09:35:58 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from avg@freebsd.org) Received: from localhost.topspin.kiev.ua ([127.0.0.1]) by porto.topspin.kiev.ua with esmtp (Exim 4.34 (FreeBSD)) id 1Ow84c-00044a-5f; Thu, 16 Sep 2010 09:35:58 +0300 Message-ID: <4C91BACD.3080501@freebsd.org> Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 09:35:57 +0300 From: Andriy Gapon User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD amd64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20100912 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: jhell References: <20100908084855.GF2465@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <4C874F00.3050605@freebsd.org> <4C8D087B.5040404@freebsd.org> <03537796FAB54E02959E2D64FC83004F@multiplay.co.uk> <4C8D280F.3040803@freebsd.org> <3FBF66BF11AA4CBBA6124CA435A4A31B@multiplay.co.uk> <4C8E4212.30000@freebsd.org> <20100915104635.GA59871@icarus.home.lan> <8E233260F0334BC58B2C07F383939F8E@multiplay.co.uk> <4C9131F6.10807@DataIX.net> <4C91409F.9090204@DataIX.net> In-Reply-To: <4C91409F.9090204@DataIX.net> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, Pawel Jakub Dawidek Subject: Re: zfs very poor performance compared to ufs due to lack of cache? X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 06:36:06 -0000 on 16/09/2010 00:54 jhell said the following: > On 09/15/2010 17:30, Steven Hartland wrote: >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "jhell" jhell@DataIX.net >> >>> On 09/15/2010 06:54, Steven Hartland wrote: >>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeremy Chadwick" >>>> >>>>> Looks like Andriy just committed something to HEAD/CURRENT which might >>>>> address this: >>>>> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=kern/141305 >>>> >>>> Already running that as part of the patches unfortunately, it doesn't >>>> seem >>>> to have any effect. >>>> >>> >>> Is it ? vm_page_set_validclean(m, off, bytes); >>> I recall you saying that you added this from earlier in the thread. >>> could be wrong though but what Andriy committed was the following. >>> >>> or ? vm_page_set_valid(m, off, bytes); >> >> >> Ahh good catch I have: >> if (error == 0) >> vm_page_set_validclean(m, off, bytes); >> >> and not as mentioned by 141305: >> if (error == 0) >> vm_page_set_valid(m, off, bytes); >> >> Which should it actaully be? >> > > Looking at the manual page vm_page_bits(9) I don't see a > vm_page_is_validclean so really would it have a effect ?. > > Maybe the man page doesn't have it, but the function is real :-) In this case it actually doesn't matter much which one to use, but what was committed is more correct (as you might have expected). -- Andriy Gapon