[eval] ABD2: linear/scatter dual typed buffer for ARC (rebase master January 23nd 2016) + additional #4266
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Reintroduce a slightly adapted version of the Illumos logic for synchronous unlinks. The basic idea here is that only files smaller than a ~1000 blocks should be deleted synchronously. Unlinking larger files should be handled asynchronously to minimize impact to the caller. To accomplish this iput() which is responsible for calling zfs_znode_delete() on Linux is only called in the delete_now path. Otherwise zfs_async_ipt() is used which allows the last reference to be dropped by a taskq thread effectively making the removing asynchronous. Porting notes: - The threshold defining a large file was reduced from the upstream DMU_MAX_DELETEBLKCNT (20480) blocks to a smaller much smaller 1024 blocks. This was done because for Linux we need to add the object to the unlinked set regardless so there's a reduced benefit to handling it synchronously. - All occurrences of zfsvfs changes to zsb. Ported-by: KernelOfTruth kerneloftruth@gmail.com Signed-off-by: Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov>
6334 Cannot unlink files when over quota Reviewed by: Matthew Ahrens <mahrens@delphix.com> Reviewed by: Toomas Soome <tsoome@me.com> Approved by: Dan McDonald <danmcd@omniti.com> References: https://www.illumos.org/issues/6334 illumos/illumos-gate@6575bca Ported-by: Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov>
Adjusting arc_c directly is racy because it can happen in the context of multiple threads. It should always be >= 2 * maxblocksize. Set it to a known valid value rather than adjusting it directly. Reverts: 935434e Fixes: openzfs#3904 Fixes: openzfs#4161
In addition to a simpler structure, protect against underflow in the calculation of the new arc_c value.
When using large blocks like 1M, this ASSERT would go off. Signed-off-by: Chunwei Chen <david.chen@osnexus.com>
|
closing, will be superseded by new abd_next rebase ... |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This is a rebase of ABD2 (abd-next) of January 15th (zfs master state of January 13th) to zfs master state of January 23rd,
mostly to test how ABD2 interacts with the illumos remove patches (#4259),
if all goes well, this shall become my new daily driver 🌟