Re: VOP_GETATTR: locking protocol change proposal

2011-11-21 Thread YAMAMOTO Takashi
hi, > On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 06:31:21AM +, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote: > > >> postgresql assumes instant lseek(SEEK_END) to get the size of > > >> their heap files. > > >> > > >> http://rhaas.blogspot.com/2011/11/linux-lseek-scalability.html > > >> > > >> as fsync etc keeps the vn

Re: language bindings (fs-independent quotas)

2011-11-21 Thread Greg A. Woods
At Fri, 18 Nov 2011 16:27:53 +0200, Alan Barrett wrote: Subject: Re: language bindings (fs-independent quotas) > > On Fri, 18 Nov 2011, Manuel Bouyer wrote: > >> Assuming that there's no need to handle fields with embedded > >> spaces, perl's split() function will DTRT. > > > > No, it does not be

Re: puffs & netbsd-5 (was VOP_GETATTR: locking protocol change proposal)

2011-11-21 Thread Matthew Mondor
On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 08:45:52 + Emmanuel Dreyfus wrote: > On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 03:26:35AM -0500, Matthew Mondor wrote: > > I seem to remember you previously writing about using puffs/rump on > > netbsd-5, is that still on netbsd-5? > > I use PUFFS on netbsd-5, and fixed a few bugs in it, s

Re: language bindings (fs-independent quotas)

2011-11-21 Thread Eric Haszlakiewicz
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 04:51:51PM +0100, Manuel Bouyer wrote: > On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 09:47:43AM -0600, Eric Haszlakiewicz wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 01:15:47PM +0100, Manuel Bouyer wrote: > > > On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 07:46:21AM +0200, Alan Barrett wrote: > > > > Assuming that there's n

Re: language bindings (fs-independent quotas)

2011-11-21 Thread Manuel Bouyer
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 09:47:43AM -0600, Eric Haszlakiewicz wrote: > On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 01:15:47PM +0100, Manuel Bouyer wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 07:46:21AM +0200, Alan Barrett wrote: > > > Assuming that there's no need to handle fields with embedded spaces, > > > perl's split() func

Re: Patch: rework kernel random number subsystem

2011-11-21 Thread Thor Lancelot Simon
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 09:20:36AM +0100, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote: > > Could you tell more about performance characteristics of your > implementation? If I read the code correctly, you also use single mutex > in cprng_strong() around all the work. The simplest scalability test is > to run 'dd if

Re: language bindings (fs-independent quotas)

2011-11-21 Thread Eric Haszlakiewicz
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 01:15:47PM +0100, Manuel Bouyer wrote: > On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 07:46:21AM +0200, Alan Barrett wrote: > > Assuming that there's no need to handle fields with embedded spaces, > > perl's split() function will DTRT. > > No, it does not because there are fields that can be em

Re: puffs & netbsd-5 (was VOP_GETATTR: locking protocol change proposal)

2011-11-21 Thread Emmanuel Dreyfus
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 03:26:35AM -0500, Matthew Mondor wrote: > I seem to remember you previously writing about using puffs/rump on > netbsd-5, is that still on netbsd-5? I use PUFFS on netbsd-5, and fixed a few bugs in it, so you defintively need latest netbsd-5 to avoid bugs. I nevver used rum

Re: puffs & netbsd-5 (was VOP_GETATTR: locking protocol change proposal)

2011-11-21 Thread Matthew Mondor
On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 08:04:46 + Emmanuel Dreyfus wrote: > FWIW I spent weeks tracking down a file corruption bug on growing giles > in PUFFS because VOP_GETATTR operates on an unlocked vnode. If the > VOP_GETATTR request follows a not yet completed VOP_FSYNC (as done by > ioflush thread), I

Re: VOP_GETATTR: locking protocol change proposal

2011-11-21 Thread Emmanuel Dreyfus
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 09:40:35PM +, David Holland wrote: > Also, retrieving data protected by a particular lock without holding > it is inherently wrong; if we're going to move the file length out > from under the main vnode lock we'd better do it explicitly. Yes, this is begging for trouble