Re: assert(e->mem_status == NOT_IN_MEMORY) versus TCP_MEM_HIT.

sön 2009-09-27 klockan 12:55 +1300 skrev Amos Jeffries:

> Ah, okay gotcha.
> So...
> (c) for people needing a quick patch.
> (b) to be committed (to meet 3.2 performance goals, saving uselsss
> disk operations, etc etc).

The number of times 'b' as discussed here will be hit is negliable. Not
sure it's worth trying to optimize this.

But the bigger picture 'b' may be worthwhile to optimize a bit, namely
better management of swapin requests. Currently there is one open disk
cache handle per concurrent client, should be sufficient with just one
for all swapin clients.. but that requires the store io interface
implementation to be cleaned up a bit allowing multiple outstanding read
operations on the same handle but processed one at a time to avoid seek
issues..

Regards
Henrik
Received on Sun Sep 27 2009 - 19:16:35 MDT