On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 5:44:09 pm Carl Delsey wrote:
> Sorry for the slow response. I was dealing with a bit of a family
> emergency. Responses inline below.
>
> On 10/09/12 08:54, John Baldwin wrote:
> > On Monday, October 08, 2012 4:59:24 pm Warner Losh wrote:
> >> On Oct 5, 2012, at 10
On Fri, 12 Oct 2012, John Baldwin wrote:
I believe it was because bus reads weren't guaranteed to be atomic on
i386. don't know if that's still the case or a concern, but it was an
intentional omission.
True. If you are on a 32-bit system you can read the two 4 byte values
and then build a 6
On 10/12/2012 9:04 AM, Robert Watson wrote:
On Fri, 12 Oct 2012, John Baldwin wrote:
I believe it was because bus reads weren't guaranteed to be atomic
on i386. don't know if that's still the case or a concern, but it
was an intentional omission.
True. If you are on a 32-bit system you can r
I wrote:
> Oops, I didn't get the "readahead" option description
> quite right in the last post. The default read ahead
> is 1, which does result in "rsize * 2", since there is
> the read + 1 readahead.
>
> "rsize * 16" would actually be for the option "readahead=15"
> and for "readahead=16" the c
<
said:
> I've attached the patch drc3.patch (it assumes drc2.patch has already been
> applied) that replaces the single mutex with one for each hash list
> for tcp. It also increases the size of NFSRVCACHE_HASHSIZE to 200.
I haven't tested this at all, but I think putting all of the mutexes
in
5 matches
Mail list logo
