From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Aug 14 09:17:03 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: current@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45FB116A41F; Sun, 14 Aug 2005 09:17:03 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from ade@lovett.com) Received: from mail.lovett.com (foo.lovett.com [67.134.38.158]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0074443D46; Sun, 14 Aug 2005 09:17:02 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from ade@lovett.com) Received: from hellfire.lovett.com ([67.134.38.155]:51470) by mail.lovett.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.52 (FreeBSD)) id 1E4Ec2-000Jjz-Ic; Sun, 14 Aug 2005 02:17:02 -0700 Message-ID: <42FF0C09.2070204@FreeBSD.org> Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 02:16:57 -0700 From: Ade Lovett User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (Macintosh/20050716) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ade Lovett References: <42F7D104.2020103@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <42F7D104.2020103@FreeBSD.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.92.0.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ade@lovett.com X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 67.134.38.155 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ade@lovett.com X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on mail.lovett.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Cc: current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Serious performance issues, broken initialization, and a likely fix X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 09:17:03 -0000 Ade Lovett wrote: > To cut a long story short, the order in which nswbuf is being > initialized is completely, totally, and utterly wrong -- this was > introduced by revision 1.132 of vm/vnode_pager.c just over 4 years ago. This is now logged as kern/84903 and, as the PR states, IMO 6.0 should *NOT* be released until a resolution is found to this problem. The current misinitialization of nswbuf will affect *any* system where there are even a reasonable number of attempted concurrent disk reads. I'm certainly willing to work with someone to get a definitive patch made, however we do *not* run HEAD here, only RELENG_6, so that will have to be taken into consideration. -aDe