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
several changes). I use the logdev device on a daily basis to debug
almost every kernel I ever touch. When working with a new kernel, the
first thing I do is usually add my logdev patch.
Note to all: The patch I posted is not the same patch that I usually
use (although the ring buffers _are_ the same), since I add stuff that
is usually more specific to what I do. So if something is broken with
it, I would greatly appreciate it if someone lets me know.
Thanks,
-- Steve
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |