Re: Freeing vnodes.

From: Stephan Uphoff (ups_at_tree.com)
Date: 03/15/05

  • Next message: Matthew Dillon: "Re: Freeing vnodes." 
    To: Jeff Roberson <jroberson@chesapeake.net>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 09:28:29 -0500

    On Tue, 2005-03-15 at 00:39, Jeff Roberson wrote:
    > On Mon, 14 Mar 2005, Stephan Uphoff wrote:
    >
    > > On Mon, 2005-03-14 at 21:38, Jeff Roberson wrote:
    > > > I have a patch at http://www.chesapeake.net/~jroberson/freevnodes.diff
    > > > that allows us to start reclaiming vnodes from the free list and release
    > > > their memory. It also changes the semantics of wantfreevnodes, and makes
    > > > getnewvnode() much prettier.
    > > >
    > > > The changes attempt to keep some number of vnodes, currently 2.5% of
    > > > desiredvnodes, that are free in memory. Free vnodes are vnodes which
    > > > have no references or pages in memory. For example, if an application
    > > > simply stat's a vnode, it will end up on the free list at the end of the
    > > > operation. The algorithm that is currently in place will immediately
    > > > recycle these vnodes once there is enough pressure, which will cause us to
    > > > do a full lookup and reread the inode, etc. as soon as it is stat'd again.
    > > >
    > > > This also removes the recycling from the getnewvnode() path. Instead, it
    > > > is done by a new helper function that is called from vnlru_proc(). This
    > > > function just frees vnodes from the head of the list until we reach our
    > > > wantfreevnodes target.
    > > >
    > > > I haven't perf tested this yet, but I have a box that is doing a
    > > > buildworld with a fairly constant freevnodes count which shows that vnodes
    > > > are actually being uma_zfree'd.
    > > >
    > > > Comments? Anyone willing to do some perf tests for me?
    > > >
    > > > Thanks,
    > > > Jeff
    > >
    > > Just looked at the raw diff and might have missed it - how are the
    > > parent directory "name" cache entries ( vnode fields v_dd, v_ddid)
    > > handled?
    >
    > Just as they were before, by calling cache_purge.

    This purges the fields of the vnode that will be recycled.
     
    I am worried about the v_dd,v_ddid fields of a directory B that has the
    to be released vnode A as parent. (Obviously in this case there is no
    namecache entry with the vnode A as the directory (nc_dvp))
      
    Right now A is type stable - but if A is released, access to B->v_dd
    may cause a page fault.

    Stephan

    _______________________________________________
    freebsd-arch@freebsd.org mailing list
    http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch
    To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-arch-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"

  • Next message: Matthew Dillon: "Re: Freeing vnodes."

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: Freeing vnodes.
      ... On Tue, 2005-03-15 at 09:28, Stephan Uphoff wrote: ... > This purges the fields of the vnode that will be recycled. ... > to be released vnode A as parent. ...
      (freebsd-arch)
    • Re: [PATCH] Make udf(4) MPSAFE and use shared lookups
      ... Set VV_ROOT in udf_vgetif we ever return a vnode instead of doing ... Allow shared vnode locks on non-fifos. ... I think you would get this same LOR w/o the patch. ... The issue is holding a buffer from bread(i.e. not calling ...
      (freebsd-current)
    • Re: [PATCH] Make udf(4) MPSAFE and use shared lookups
      ... Set VV_ROOT in udf_vgetif we ever return a vnode instead of doing it ... If the hash lookup in ufs_vgetfails, ensure an exclusive vnode lock ... Allow shared vnode locks on non-fifos. ... The issue is holding a buffer from bread(i.e. not calling ...
      (freebsd-current)