Re: write alignment matters?

[David Holland <dholland-tech%netbsd.org@localhost>]

On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 11:33:51AM -0400, der Mouse wrote:
 > >> Oh, I was talking about current NetBSD where block devices are a
 > >> second class citizen, soon to be abolished if someone finds enough
 > >> round tuits.
 > > Yes, so it keeps being said.  It would truly be a pity to see that
 > > happen.
 > 
 > Why?

Why which? :-)

The current problem is that the block device is connected to the old
pre-UBC buffer cache now used only for metadata blocks, so various
problems (consistency, starvation, etc.) can occur if you start using
it for bulk I/O. There's also a problem that the buffer cache code
wasn't ever designed to cope with removable devices, so bad things
happen if you try to use the block device for something that isn't
there (e.g. a floppy drive with no media in it) or that you eject
before writeback has completed.

I assume the reason it would be a pity to see it go is that (when
working properly) it's useful functionality, even if used rarely or
only in specialized circumstances. Also, for applications like online
defrag or whatnot, using a (properly unified) block device is delicate
but using a raw device is entirely infeasible.

My current intent is to tackle the buffer cache when/if I ever finish
grinding namei and namei-related vfs stuff, because the lack of full
unification bugs me and the build quality of the old buffer code
concerns me.

-- 
David A. Holland
dholland%netbsd.org@localhost