cvs commit: src/sys/sys buf.h
Alexander at Leidinger.net
Sat Nov 6 04:06:08 PST 2004
On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 11:42:14 -0800
Julian Elischer <julian at elischer.org> wrote:
> >Do you have an outline where this heads to and why?
> when systems were smaller the number of cached bufs was small, and bufs
> represented 'buffers' likely to used soon fo rIO and IO requests were
> it made sence to combine the IO request and the storage descriptor (buf).
> Since then, storage is done via the vm system, IO requests have gotten
> and the number of IO requests needed at any time has remained small. it
> makes less
> sense to have an IO request with every buf storage descriptor.
You haven't said it explicitly, but I assume there are cases where an IO
request doesn't need a buf storage descriptor. Is this correct?
I was asking for something like an annotated roadmap. Something like
"After X will be done, we need to look at Y, X is an infrastructure
change for Y and we want Y because it allows us to do Z." This would
allow those who are reading cvs-all to see where we are standing and
where we are heading (and to applaud when we reach milestones).
The best things in life are free, but the
expensive ones are still worth a look.
http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net
GPG fingerprint = C518 BC70 E67F 143F BE91 3365 79E2 9C60 B006 3FE7
More information about the freebsd-current