trust me - experiment. ask questions. i'll send code. it can be an enormous speedup.
brucee On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 12:17 AM, Venkatesh Srinivas <m...@acm.jhu.edu> wrote: > On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 3:10 AM, Charles Forsyth <fors...@terzarima.net> > wrote: >> >> >Perhaps we could turn on async clunk for other files when the chan has >> >CCACHE set (mount -C iirc). We already believe that the fileserver is >> >'decent' then... >> >> that's more plausible, since you've declared that you're not interested >> in certain details, but then the larger question arises: why pick on >> clunk? >> in Op, the thing that reduces network latency is combining the sequence >> open, (read|write), close >> into a single operation. > > When we tried out async Clunk in the Journal Callbacks work, it offered some > fairly great improvements; and the details that it varies in are very minor > compared to uncached 9p, particularly for decent fileservers. > Since Clunk cannot fail, this also admits a simple (perhaps) approximation - > issue the clunk as expected, but do not wait for RClunk. >> services that wait for a close to commit, > Hmm. Does this mean that any modification to devmnt, to keep a larger pool > of FDs active for example, rather than clunking eagerly while walking, is > unsafe? That would hold around directory FDs, which would make services like > the above unhappy, or at least behave differently. Perhaps those file > servers are assuming something not specified in the 9p definitions? > Also, cyclic structures in Limbo with file descriptors embedded will not > release the FD immediately after the outer structure is discarded. In a > sense, that is also a delayed Clunk... > -- vs > >
