Subject: Re: diffs for UVM/UBC improvements available
To: Chuck Silvers <email@example.com>
From: Bill Sommerfeld <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 05/22/2001 15:40:20
> I can't disagree with this, but I don't think it's really that much harder
> to look at now. I just read through the whole diff last night to write up
> the summary, and it wasn't hard to tell which aspect different parts
> were for.
I find it much easier to go through and verify that (for instance) all
the VOP_ISLOCKED changes were done correctly in one pass if you don't
have to wade through other changes while doing so.
> > > (I also got rid of v_lease on the principle that it's an optimization for
> > > an almost-unused feature.)
> > Why? I actually use this stuff. How much slower is NQNFS under heavy
> > use since making this change? This strikes me as "going a step too
> > far".
> I have no idea what the performance effect of this is.
> what test would you be interested in, specifically?
I'd realy prefer to see this part of the change backed out as
completely unrelated to the UBC/UVM tweaks. How much performance gain
do you get *specifically* from nuking v_lease?