The current implementation of zil_commit() can introduce significant
latency, beyond what is inherent due to the latency of the underlying
storage. The additional latency comes from two main problems:
1. When there's outstanding ZIL blocks being written (i.e. there's
    already a "writer thread" in progress), then any new calls to
    zil_commit() will block waiting for the currently oustanding ZIL
    blocks to complete. The blocks written for each "writer thread" is
    coined a "batch", and there can only ever be a single "batch" being
    written at a time. When a batch is being written, any new ZIL
    transactions will have to wait for the next batch to be written,
    which won't occur until the current batch finishes.
As a result, the underlying storage may not be used as efficiently
    as possible. While "new" threads enter zil_commit() and are blocked
    waiting for the next batch, it's possible that the underlying
    storage isn't fully utilized by the current batch of ZIL blocks. In
    that case, it'd be better to allow these new threads to generate
    (and issue) a new ZIL block, such that it could be serviced by the
    underlying storage concurrently with the other ZIL blocks that are
    being serviced.
2. Any call to zil_commit() must wait for all ZIL blocks in its "batch"
    to complete, prior to zil_commit() returning. The size of any given
    batch is proportional to the number of ZIL transaction in the queue
    at the time that the batch starts processing the queue; which
    doesn't occur until the previous batch completes. Thus, if there's a
    lot of transactions in the queue, the batch could be composed of
    many ZIL blocks, and each call to zil_commit() will have to wait for
    all of these writes to complete (even if the thread calling
    zil_commit() only cared about one of the transactions in the batch).