On 0316T1004, Warner Losh wrote:
> [[ stupid mouse ]]
>
> On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 10:01 AM, Warner Losh <i...@bsdimp.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 6:06 AM, Pete French <petefre...@ingresso.co.uk>
> > wrote:
> >>> I don't like the delay and retry approach at all.
> >>
> >> Its not ideal, but it is what we do for UFS after all...
> >>
> >>> Imagine that you told the kernel that you want to mount your root from a
> >>> ZFS
> >>> pool which is on a USB driver which you have already thrown out. Should
> >>> the
> >>> kernel just keep waiting for that pool to appear?
> >>
> >> I'm not talking about an infinite loop here, just making it honour
> >> the 'vfs.mountroot.timeout' setting like it does ofr UFS. So it
> >> should wait for the timeout I have set and then proceed as it would if
> >> there had been no timeout. Default behaviout is for it to behave as it
> >> does now, its onyl when you need the retry that you enable it.
> >
> > Put another way: With UFS is keeps retrying until the timeout expires.
> > If the first try succeeds, the boot is immediate.
> >
> >> Right now this works for UFS, but not for ZFS, which is an inconsistency
> >> that I dont like, and also means I am being forced down a UFS root
> >> path if I require this.
> >
> > Yes. ZFS is special, but I don't think the assumptions behind its
> > specialness are quite right:
> >
> > /*
> > * In case of ZFS and NFS we don't have a way to wait for
> > * specific device. Also do the wait if the user forced that
> > * behaviour by setting vfs.root_mount_always_wait=1.
> > */
> > if (strcmp(fs, "zfs") == 0 || strstr(fs, "nfs") != NULL ||
> > dev[0] == '\0' || root_mount_always_wait != 0) {
> > vfs_mountroot_wait();
> > return (0);
> > }
> >
> > So you can make it always succeed by forcing the wait, but that's lame...
>
> Later we check to see if a device by a given name is present. Since
> ZFS doesn't present its pool names as devices to the rest of the
> system, that's not going to work quite right. That's the real reason
> that ZFS is special. It isn't that we can't wait for individual
> devices, it's that we can't wait for the 'mount token' that we use for
> what to mount to be 'ready'. NFS suffers from the same problem, but
> since its device is always ready since it's stateless, it isn't as
> noticeable.
Not sure what you mean. The problem we handle ZFS and NFS in
a different way (always waiting) is _exactly_ so that we don't
have a way to wait for the individual device, like we can for
eg UFS, and we have to fall back to mount tokens, which were
used unconditionally before 11.0.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
