From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Jul 7 17:21:19 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from alpo.whistle.com (alpo.whistle.com [207.76.204.38]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B582154D7; Wed, 7 Jul 1999 17:21:04 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from julian@whistle.com) Received: from current1.whistle.com (current1.whistle.com [207.76.205.22]) by alpo.whistle.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id RAA26717; Wed, 7 Jul 1999 17:20:55 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 17:20:54 -0700 (PDT) From: Julian Elischer To: Jason Thorpe Cc: Matthew Dillon , David Greenman , freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Heh heh, humorous lockup In-Reply-To: <199907080012.RAA19187@lestat.nas.nasa.gov> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Wed, 7 Jul 1999, Jason Thorpe wrote: > 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. Yes, I understand... I was simplifying :-) > > -- Jason R. Thorpe > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message