On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 08:50:59PM +0300, Antti Kantee wrote: > On Wed Sep 23 2009 at 09:40:26 -0700, Bill Stouder-Studenmund wrote: > > > But vnodes doesn't need to be reclaimed so often as allocated. I think > > > that allocation is more critical then speed of reclaim. > > > > Huh? After we reach the max # of vnodes, every allocated vnode comes from > > a vnode being cleaned. > > > > Also, since you have one thread, what happens when one file system is slow > > about reclaiming a vnode? Say an nfs mount that's having problems. Or a > > disk array that is having a lot of i/o errors that take a while but which > > it's recovering from. Your one thread now stalls, and so you can starve > > the whole OS of vnodes. > > With the patch vnodes are vnalloc()'d always. So you're not starving > the OS of vnodes ... Oh. That's bad. We really do need to be able to bound the # of vnodes. > I think it's becoming very clear that the proposed change is not > acceptable in the grand scheme of things and debating details will not > change this. Ok. I'll hush for now (or until the thread awakens with gusto :-) ) Take care, Bill
Attachment:
pgpMARaOEiHMg.pgp
Description: PGP signature