On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 20:42:32 +
David Holland dholland-t...@netbsd.org wrote:
That may be, but it's still true of file descriptors. Traditionally
they're capabilities, and I really don't like the idea of rearranging
that arbitrarily and inconsistently.
I think to do this correctly, exec
On Dec 6, 2012, at 8:32 AM, Michael van Elst mlel...@serpens.de wrote:
hann...@eis.cs.tu-bs.de (J. Hannken-Illjes) writes:
David wants forced unmounts to work even if a thread gets stuck
permanently in a vnode operation.
How can it get stuck (short of bugs) ?
Here we are talking about
I am interested, but I lack significant vnode clue. So, sorry if answers
are obvious - they are not to me.
About the only situation I ever (and it is almost reproducable at will), in
daily life, wanted to use forced unmounts instead of rebooting a machine (or
before the machine rebooted itself in
On Dec 6, 2012, at 10:14 AM, Martin Husemann mar...@duskware.de wrote:
I am interested, but I lack significant vnode clue. So, sorry if answers
are obvious - they are not to me.
About the only situation I ever (and it is almost reproducable at will), in
daily life, wanted to use forced
On Thu, 6 Dec 2012 08:23:07 +0100
J. Hannken-Illjes hann...@eis.cs.tu-bs.de wrote:
Looks like this thread is dead. No one beside David Holland is
interested and David objects. I take back my proposal.
Have been reading the discussion. Don't assume that no contribution
means no interest!
On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 10:32:01AM +, Julian Yon wrote:
I think you could take some inspiration from Linux here: it has a very
handy umount -l which detaches the filesystem from the tree, but defers
the rest of the unmount/cleanup until the fs is no longer busy. This
can help in
On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 05:31:59PM +0100, J. Hannken-Illjes wrote:
A suspended fs has the guarantee that no other thread will be inside
fstrans_suspend / fstrans_done of any vnode operation.
Threads stuck permanently as in (c) are impossible to catch.
...doesn't that mean the
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 08:23:07 +0100
From: J. Hannken-Illjes hann...@eis.cs.tu-bs.de
Looks like this thread is dead. No one beside David Holland is
interested and David objects. I take back my proposal.
I'm interested, but I haven't fit enough of the vnode life cycle or
the fstrans
On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 12:56:27PM -0500, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 08:29:23AM -0800, Chuck Silvers wrote:
and the top few entries from that with a portion of your dd test are:
...
dtrace outputs counts with the smallest numbers first,
so the most interesting
On Apr 27, 3:15am, David Laight wrote:
} On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 10:17:23PM -0800, John Nemeth wrote:
}
} We use ISC's DHCP server. As third party software, it is designed
} to be portable to many systems. BPF is a fairly portable interface,
} thus a reasonable interface for it to
hi,
Hello,
while working on nfs performance issues with overquota writes (which
turned out to be a ffs issue), I came up with the attached patch.
What this does it, for nfs over TCP, restrict a socket buffer processing
to a single thread (right now, all pending requests are processed
by all
hi,
Forced unmounts will most likely panic the kernel. The main problem is
other threads running a vnode operation when we come to clean and
reclaim an active vnode and therefore change its operation vector and
destroy the file system private data without locking or synchronisation.
One
12 matches
Mail list logo
