On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 12:01 PM, Charles Forsyth <[email protected]>wrote:
> >Do you do completely asynch clunks or just the wait for the response?. > > it uses `completely' async clunks, which is why it can be broken. > > having the original process send the Tclunk and not wait > for the Rclunk is different. i think it was mentioned last time this > matter came up, and that's probably why i didn't pursue this discussion > further then, since that change is less of a problem. (at least, if you > don't mind > close not returning an error from the clunk, but since the current > implementations > suppress errors from clunk, it's a trickier position to sustain.) > > I think that this is a fine approach as well -- the vast majority of the performance improvement is in eliminating the wait for the Rclunk, not in the asynchronous issue. I didn't use this approach here not because I wanted to issue the clunk out-of-line, but because it was harder to code (I'd have needed to split devmnt's mountio()). This was actually the approach Wes and I did last year when commenting on the desirability of asynchronous clunks, in a purely "user mode" process. The performance gains were very similar to this work. -- vs
