A question about NFS delay-write
A question about NFS delay-write
- Subject: A question about NFS delay-write
- From: Sid Moore <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 18:12:03 +0800
- Delivered-to: email@hidden
- Delivered-to: email@hidden
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=+KR82zC8cBPRe3BrVP5m9UhakYIInMMXpzIj3vxPs9Q=; b=rBdZYaFw0H88Pmuom5bu8Wz9NBC4BadqlOoLzhi2SBzVp7KFcJYY1YdHFQL9Q2LJnP xKDUFN+YOwbhf9zzwFj5BfvZfyxF/+1Ly4wy6AlYgGhamDmm09BRB7QmwZwzOnfB+Nbv we1KA4KA9+oljGKBRmejQoLJ5C4SQNd3v6Vp4=
Hello.
I have a quest about NFS delay-write. As you know, NFS client will try
to merge as much writing request as possible to a nfsbuffer, writing
it to NFS server when it is full of dirty pages if CacheIO. But dirty
pages bitmap in a nfsbuf object are never explicitly set in
nfs_vnop_write() flow. So, in delay-write case, pages involved in
small grain writing IO was not set to be dirty. After
nfs_buf_release(), I think Mach VM will regards them as valid and
non-dirty pages. So, those pages would be dropped if memory shortage,
rather than be pageout to NFS server.
Am I correct? If so, I think it is a bug?
Best Regards,
Sid Moore
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Filesystem-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden