From owner-cvs-all  Thu Jun 11 09:54:20 1998
Return-Path: <owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA29959
          for cvs-all-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 09:54:20 -0700 (PDT)
          (envelope-from owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG)
Received: from alpo.whistle.com (alpo.whistle.com [207.76.204.38])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA29916;
          Thu, 11 Jun 1998 09:54:05 -0700 (PDT)
          (envelope-from julian@whistle.com)
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
	by alpo.whistle.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id JAA01553;
	Thu, 11 Jun 1998 09:50:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from current1.whistle.com(207.76.205.22)
 via SMTP by alpo.whistle.com, id smtpd001550; Thu Jun 11 16:50:24 1998
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 09:50:22 -0700 (PDT)
From: Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com>
To: "John S. Dyson" <dyson@FreeBSD.ORG>
cc: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG,
        julian@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/ufs/ffs ffs_vnops.c
In-Reply-To: <199806110351.WAA12373@dyson.iquest.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.95.980611094847.29233I-100000@current1.whistle.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk

Kirk wanted the removal of the vfs_bio_awrite for testing various ideas
It wil likely come back after a while. 
As John said. it's not much of a loss for indirect blocks.


On Wed, 10 Jun 1998, John S. Dyson wrote:

> Bruce Evans said:
> > >  Modified files:
> > >    sys/ufs/ffs          ffs_vnops.c 
> > >  Log:
> > >  Back out John's changes 1.45 -> 1.46
> > >  Kirk confirms that the original semantic was what he wanted...
> > >  (well, a very slight difference)
> > >  May fix "dangling deps" panic with soft updates.
> > >  
> > >  Revision  Changes    Path
> > >  1.50      +17 -21    src/sys/ufs/ffs/ffs_vnops.c
> > 
> > A back out would have been +12 -17.
> > 
> > It also seems to change the semantic to "wait for v_numoutput even in
> > the soft updates case", and fix some style bugs, and break the
> > optimization of using vfs_bio_awrite() instead of bawrite() for async
> > writes of indirect blocks.
> > 
> If vfs_bio_awrite optimization is broken for *just* indirect blocks,
> there isn't much lossage.  If the vfs_bio_awrite is broken for data
> blocks, the performance loss is significant.
> 
> -- 
> John                  | Never try to teach a pig to sing,
> dyson@freebsd.org     | it just makes you look stupid,
> jdyson@nc.com         | and it irritates the pig.
> 


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message