On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 10:34:34 +1300, Amos Jeffries <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 01:25:59 +0400, Dmitry Kurochkin wrote: > > Hi all. > > > > There has been no discussion on this thread for a while. The latest > > patch version (attached) fixes all the issues from Amos and Alex I > > know > > of. So I would like to get an approval for the patch or hints at > > what > > else needs to be fixed. > > > > The patch does not change the way unlinkd is started. But after the > > changes, unlinkd is started iff it is needed. Whether unlinkd is > > needed > > is determined by both cache dir and DiskIO strategy. Unlinkd may be > > started during reconfiguration if a cache dir that needs it was added > > or > > DiskIO strategy changed. > > > > There was discussion about starting unlinkd on demand. But the > > consensus seems to be that it Squid needs substantial changes to > > minimize fork() performance penalty. So while we want to implement > > this > > long term, for now we should start unlinkd on startup and > > reconfiguration. > > > > Please let me know if I missed any comments or issues with the patch. > > > > Regards, > > Dmitry > > > This seems fine to go in for the bug fix. The rest was us going off on > a tangent. > > The only worry I have left is the dependency on IamWorkerProcess() in > src/fs/ufs/store_dir_ufs.cc. > > If you have checked that SMP with Diskers is not broken by that check > then this is fine to go in now. >
Yes. IamWorkerProcess() prevents UFS from starting unlinkd in coordinator, master and disker processes (though in non-daemon mode, master process is worker and). This is what we want. Regards, Dmitry > Amos
