On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 01:59:41 +0400, Dmitry Kurochkin wrote:
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.
Then I'm happy for it to go in now.
+1.
Amos
