On Friday, August 20, 2010 3:42:27 pm Kostik Belousov wrote: > On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 03:35:48PM -0400, John Baldwin wrote: > > On Friday, August 20, 2010 3:19:53 pm Kostik Belousov wrote: > > > It seems nobody replied to the mdf@ objection against wait of the > > > new proc startup being equivalent to the LOR. I think that the wait > > > is safe, because the task is executed in the context of > > > the different process then the enqueue request. > > > This might be worth noting in the comment or commit message. > > > > I do wonder if we could get away with not waiting at all and always return > > -1? > > You could have the task handler actually finish the toggle of the tristate > > in > > the array. Potentially you could even dispense with the linked list of > > malloc'd structures and just walk the array creating processes for any > > entries > > in the "in-progress" state in the task handler. You might also want to > > avoid > > submitting entries for new threads if there is already a pending one? If > > that > > is the case it could be further simplified by having the task always create > > a > > single kthread when scheduled and just scheduling the task anytime a request > > needs one. > I think this is not that easy. Please take a look at nfs_asyncio(). > There is a lot of logic what to do in case an nfsiod thread was found > or not etc.
Gah, the real problem is that unless the new kproc starts up super fast we would invariably return EIO causing the I/O to be performed synchronously more often. Given that, I think pluknet's patch is fine once it is updated for the module unload case. -- John Baldwin _______________________________________________ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"