Re: Merging relayfs?

[Tom Zanussi]

Tom Zanussi writes:
 > Steven Rostedt writes:
 >  > On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 11:36 -0500, Tom Zanussi wrote:
 >  > 
 >  > >  > 
 >  > >  > I totally agree that the vmalloc way is faster, but I would also argue
 >  > >  > that the accounting to handle the separate pages would not even be
 >  > >  > noticeable with the time it takes to do the actual copying into the
 >  > >  > buffer.  So if the accounting adds 3ns on top of 500ns to complete, I
 >  > >  > don't think people will mind.
 >  > > 
 >  > > OK, it sounds like something to experiment with - I can play around
 >  > > with it, and later submit a patch to remove vmap if it works out.
 >  > > Does that sound like a good idea?
 >  > 
 >  > Sounds good to me, since different approaches to a problem are always
 >  > good, since it allows for comparing the plusses and minuses.  Not sure
 >  > if you want to take a crack using my ring buffers, but although they are
 >  > quite confusing, they have been fully tested, since I haven't changed
 >  > the ring buffer for a few years (although logdev itself has gone
 > through
 > 
 > I was thinking of something simpler, like just using the page array we
 > already have in relayfs, but not vmap'ing it and instead writing to
 > the current page, detecting when to split a record, moving on to the
 > next page, etc. and seeing how it compares with the vmap version.
 > 

Just a clarification - I didn't mean to ignore your ring buffers - it
would be good to try both, I think...

Tom


-
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/