On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 12:01 PM, Charles Forsyth <forsyth@terzarima.net>wrote:

> >Do you do completely asynch clunks or just the wait for the response?.
>
> it uses `completely' async clunks, which is why it can be broken.
>
> having the original process send the Tclunk and not wait
> for the Rclunk is different. i think it was mentioned last time this
> matter came up, and that's probably why i didn't pursue this discussion
> further then, since that change is less of a problem. (at least, if you
> don't mind
> close not returning an error from the clunk, but since the current
> implementations
> suppress errors from clunk, it's a trickier position to sustain.)
>
>
I think that this is a fine approach as well -- the vast majority of the
performance improvement is in eliminating the wait for the Rclunk, not in
the asynchronous issue. I didn't use this approach here not because I wanted
to issue the clunk out-of-line, but because it was harder to code (I'd have
needed to split devmnt's mountio()).

This was actually the approach Wes and I did last year when commenting on
the desirability of asynchronous clunks, in a purely "user mode" process.
The performance gains were very similar to this work.

-- vs