Re: Merging relayfs?

[Karim Yaghmour]

Andrew Morton wrote:
> Still, first let us get a handle on who wants relayfs now and in the future
> and for what.  Then we can better decide.

We used relayfs for our series of tests on PREEMPT_RT and I-Pipe.
Specifically, we used relayfs buffers to store the timestamps for our
interrupt latency measurements. This allowed us to easily have access
to very large buffering areas without having to worry about any form
of detailed resource allocation, or runtime overhead of logging. IOW,
it allowed us to concentrate on our main priority: log a very large
amount of timestamps.

On the LTT side, relayfs is bound to be at the center of whatever
architecture we settle on for the ongoing rewrite. For having used it
for past releases of LTT, we know that it can handle very heavy data
throughput with little overhead using a relatively simple API.

Karim
-- 
Author, Speaker, Developer, Consultant
Pushing Embedded and Real-Time Linux Systems Beyond the Limits
http://www.opersys.com || karim@xxxxxxxxxxx || 1-866-677-4546
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/