Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 10:34:20 +0100 (BST) From: Doug Rabson <dfr@render.com> To: Hidetoshi Shimokawa <simokawa@sat.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp> Cc: henrich@crh.cl.msu.edu, lite2@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Delayed write patch Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.95.961011103219.10204u-100000@minnow.render.com> In-Reply-To: <9432.844966167@sat.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 11 Oct 1996, Hidetoshi Shimokawa wrote: > Hi, > > dfr> Thanks for the patch. It improves performance for my SGI from ~720k/sec > dfr> to ~870k/sec. I modified the patch (and the nfs_dwrite patch) slightly > I'm glad to hear this. > Are you getting it under NFSv2 and 10BASE? > > dfr> and added comments to try to explain what is happening. Could you check > dfr> the comments to make sure they agree with your understanding of the > dfr> problem and I will commit this patch to current probably tomorrow. > As you know, I'm not a native speaker of English, so I'm not sure that > vfs.nfs.dwrite is a good notation. If you think vfs.nfs.delwri or > another notation is better, I have no objection. I think vfs.nfs.dwrite is fine. > [...] > > "In this case, the lock is not taken because it is not necessary." > > [...] > > "..., then just return without taking the lock. > It is necessary when a single iod 'captures' the recive lock. > This situation often occurs while many 'delayed write buffers' are > being processed" I have included your new wording, thanks. > > Actually, under delayed write process, single iod keeps recive lock, > but other iods can process its reply without block. I think I understand it a bit better now. -- Doug Rabson, Microsoft RenderMorphics Ltd. Mail: dfr@render.com Phone: +44 171 734 3761 FAX: +44 171 734 6426
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.95.961011103219.10204u-100000>