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 [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]
| |
 |