Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 17:25:55 -0500 (EST) From: "John S. Dyson" <toor@dyson.iquest.net> To: terry@lambert.org (Terry Lambert) Cc: toor@dyson.iquest.net, terry@lambert.org, phk@critter.tfs.com, dyson@freebsd.org, peter@spinner.dialix.com, smp@freebsd.org, haertel@ichips.intel.com Subject: Re: some questions concerning TLB shootdowns in FreeBSD Message-ID: <199612142225.RAA05515@dyson.iquest.net> In-Reply-To: <199612142138.OAA22308@phaeton.artisoft.com> from "Terry Lambert" at Dec 14, 96 02:38:54 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > > Slightly off subject, but I plan to sometime carry the vnode/offset > > caching to a more generalized scheme that also encompasses device/offset > > caching. Specifically, device/offset is the same as vnode/offset. > > > > This will allow us to cache data without the vnode. However, we will > > continue to have the advantages of the current vnode/offset scheme. > > This is one of the reasons for murdering vclean: so you can get a cache > hit on perfectly good data which is in memory, but for which the vnode > has been reused, freed, destroyed, or whatever. Without the vnode, the > perfectly good data can not get a cache hit... it has to be loaded in > from disk again (potentially tromping other perfectly good data that > is also in cache, but is older than the perfectly good data we can no > longer reference -- bletch). > > The ONLY reason that it hasn't been done, is (my) time limitations. Other things scream louder -- and the "nice" things get left by the wayside. For example, today I am working on the merge of the Lite/2 stuff (finally). After the merge, and the commits, I expect that there will be at least a few days of instability, and guess what I get to do (answer: read frantic requests for help, look at core dumps, and generally feel bad about messing up the tree.) :-). John dyson@freebsd.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199612142225.RAA05515>