--bKyqfOwhbdpXa4YI
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sun, Sep 23, 2007 at 03:30:32PM +1200, Avinash Malik wrote:
> Hello,
>      I have been implementing the journaling,
> I had a few questions
> 1.) Say when I am committing (which is being done on a separate lwp than =
adding
> transactions), my current implementation first gets the transaction to be
> committed. Checks If there is enough space in the log, If there is then a=
 copy
> of the transaction is made. This copy is then sent to the commit-func-poi=
nter
> to be written to the journal. Fine, this is the normal case.
>=20
> 2.) When there is not enough space in log. I call the check-pointing rout=
ine
> instead of the committing routine, which flushes (not yet implemented)
> everything from log onto disk.

I think you're putting the cart before the horse. Figure out how to write=
=20
data to the journal correctly & subsequently out to disk. Then talk about=
=20
how to make it faster. Since you haven't written code yet, it's not clear=
=20
that a separate thread really will help, or that it will help the most.

> Question:
>=20
> 1.) Is there a need to kick a waiting thread on mutex using condvars. Bec=
ause I
> have a committing function which is waiting on journal-mutex and the call=
ing
> thread first acquires that journal-mutex, makes the transaction copies et=
c...
> and then exits it. Logically this should work fine since once the calling
> ufs_thread exits mutex commit-lwp should obtain it correct? So no need fo=
r me
> kicking the commit thread with condvars....

You have to wake the condvar. That's how they work. If the thread is=20
waiting to lock the mutex, it may get the mutex once its released. However=
=20
if you're waiting on a condvar, you wait until your awoken.

> 2.) A trivial question, the blkroundup macro in /sys/ufs/ext2fs.h takes t=
he
> size,fs and gives back size out. From what I can make out, say if buf has=
 valid
> data size of 9-bytes and blocks in the fs were 2-bytes each then the retu=
rned
> size would be 10-bytes (i.e. rounded up to the block-boundary correct?)

Yes, however you should never need to use that code. Everything that gets=
=20
sent to the journal should already be a block.

Take care,

Bill

--bKyqfOwhbdpXa4YI
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (NetBSD)

iD8DBQFG9gKaWz+3JHUci9cRAvhBAJ425Bpvmx9i+lbi0p2aTlC/4C7ppQCfaqP7
KxYXPt7QEVR3HRImPrG/K6g=
=qtVA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--bKyqfOwhbdpXa4YI--