RE: nullfs changes MFC
> -Original Message- > From: owner-freebsd-sta...@freebsd.org > [mailto:owner-freebsd-sta...@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of > Konstantin Belousov > Sent: Saturday, 8 December 2012 12:01 PM > To: f...@freebsd.org > Cc: sta...@freebsd.org > Subject: nullfs changes MFC > > Hi, > I am going to merge latest batch of the nullfs improvements > into stable/9. This will bring up significant performance > enchancements due to use of the shared locks for lookups if > the lower layer supports it, much better caching on the > nullfs layer, and proper handling of the text segments on the > nullfs. Also, it should improve the error recovery and some > corner cases with locking. > > Unfortunately, the merge would break KBI for VFS, since it > needs 5 new VOP slots, and only three spares are left. We > already are very liberal with the VFS KBI, so I do not feel > that the merge is not acceptable, due to the benefits it > brings to the nullfs. > > The merge is available at > http://people.freebsd.org/~kib/misc/nullfs_9.1.patch > Konstantin, Thank-you for these improvements. I've been running this patchset on test and build servers for a few weeks and the systems remained stable and reliable. On some fairly complex jail and nullfs environments there has been an improvement in the order of 3 to 8% for large sequential writes. Regards, Dewayne PS I've reversed out the patches now they've migrated to RELENG_9 ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: nullfs changes MFC
By combining vop_settext/unset/get into a single call with parameters "op" and &out (for gettext) you can reduce 3 new vops into a single vop. The same can be done for write count vops. This will allow you to preserve kbi by reducing the vop additions to 2. Sent from my iPhone On Dec 7, 2012, at 5:01 PM, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > Hi, > I am going to merge latest batch of the nullfs improvements into > stable/9. This will bring up significant performance enchancements due > to use of the shared locks for lookups if the lower layer supports it, > much better caching on the nullfs layer, and proper handling of the text > segments on the nullfs. Also, it should improve the error recovery and > some corner cases with locking. > > Unfortunately, the merge would break KBI for VFS, since it needs 5 new > VOP slots, and only three spares are left. We already are very liberal > with the VFS KBI, so I do not feel that the merge is not acceptable, due > to the benefits it brings to the nullfs. > > The merge is available at > http://people.freebsd.org/~kib/misc/nullfs_9.1.patch ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: nullfs changes MFC
On Sat, Dec 08, 2012 at 12:35:42PM +0200, Andriy Gapon wrote: > on 08/12/2012 05:06 Konstantin Belousov said the following: > > On Sat, Dec 08, 2012 at 03:58:16AM +0100, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > >> On Sat, Dec 08, 2012 at 03:01:09AM +0200, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > > ... > >>> The merge is available at > >>> http://people.freebsd.org/~kib/misc/nullfs_9.1.patch > >> > >> > >> Sorry I haven't checked the latest zfs related MFC, but for some time > >> there was an issue with nullfs improvements and zfs, will this mfc be > >> synchronize with the mfc of the related zfs fixes? > > > > Corresponding zfs fixes were already merged to stable/9, as I was told. > > Cc:ed Andrey to confirm it once more. > > Yes, a while ago. > Perfect thank you both! And sorry for noise :) regards, Bapt pgpbYLSRsMLFP.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: nullfs changes MFC
on 08/12/2012 05:06 Konstantin Belousov said the following: > On Sat, Dec 08, 2012 at 03:58:16AM +0100, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: >> On Sat, Dec 08, 2012 at 03:01:09AM +0200, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > ... >>> The merge is available at >>> http://people.freebsd.org/~kib/misc/nullfs_9.1.patch >> >> >> Sorry I haven't checked the latest zfs related MFC, but for some time >> there was an issue with nullfs improvements and zfs, will this mfc be >> synchronize with the mfc of the related zfs fixes? > > Corresponding zfs fixes were already merged to stable/9, as I was told. > Cc:ed Andrey to confirm it once more. Yes, a while ago. -- Andriy Gapon ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: nullfs changes MFC
On Sat, Dec 08, 2012 at 03:58:16AM +0100, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > On Sat, Dec 08, 2012 at 03:01:09AM +0200, Konstantin Belousov wrote: ... > > The merge is available at > > http://people.freebsd.org/~kib/misc/nullfs_9.1.patch > > > Sorry I haven't checked the latest zfs related MFC, but for some time > there was an issue with nullfs improvements and zfs, will this mfc be > synchronize with the mfc of the related zfs fixes? Corresponding zfs fixes were already merged to stable/9, as I was told. Cc:ed Andrey to confirm it once more. pgp5JWVCeKD4r.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: nullfs changes MFC
On Sat, Dec 08, 2012 at 03:01:09AM +0200, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > Hi, > I am going to merge latest batch of the nullfs improvements into > stable/9. This will bring up significant performance enchancements due > to use of the shared locks for lookups if the lower layer supports it, > much better caching on the nullfs layer, and proper handling of the text > segments on the nullfs. Also, it should improve the error recovery and > some corner cases with locking. > > Unfortunately, the merge would break KBI for VFS, since it needs 5 new > VOP slots, and only three spares are left. We already are very liberal > with the VFS KBI, so I do not feel that the merge is not acceptable, due > to the benefits it brings to the nullfs. > > The merge is available at > http://people.freebsd.org/~kib/misc/nullfs_9.1.patch Sorry I haven't checked the latest zfs related MFC, but for some time there was an issue with nullfs improvements and zfs, will this mfc be synchronize with the mfc of the related zfs fixes? regards, Bapt pgpZ7YTsbpo9F.pgp Description: PGP signature
