cvs commit: src/sys/kern vfs_subr.c src/sys/sys buf.h bufobj.h vnode.h

[Poul-Henning Kamp]

In message <200410271019.i9RAJqTi020328 at gw.catspoiler.org>, Don Lewis writes:
>On 27 Oct, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>
>> I am still not convinced that even having the generic syncer is a
>> good idea.  I think it would make a lot more sense to park a kthread
>> on each mountpoint to act as syncer for that mountpoint.  And then
>> _maybe_ have a bufobj method that says "reduce your footprint" in
>> some sort of way to keep the global balance.
>
>I think this idea has a lot of merit. [...]

There are man unknowns and at least I need to do some prototyping to see
where I end up if I do it one way or another.

For instance: If the syncer is something the filesystem starts at
its own discretion, there wouldn't be a need for a syncer for R/O
filesystems.

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk at FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.