From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261611AbVGLQup (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Jul 2005 12:50:45 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261691AbVGLQup (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Jul 2005 12:50:45 -0400 Received: from ms-smtp-01.nyroc.rr.com ([24.24.2.55]:20622 "EHLO ms-smtp-01.nyroc.rr.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261611AbVGLQuA (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Jul 2005 12:50:00 -0400 Subject: Re: Merging relayfs? From: Steven Rostedt To: Tom Zanussi Cc: Jason Baron , richardj_moore@uk.ibm.com, varap@us.ibm.com, karim@opersys.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@osdl.org In-Reply-To: <17107.61864.621401.440354@tut.ibm.com> References: <17107.6290.734560.231978@tut.ibm.com> <1121183607.6917.47.camel@localhost.localdomain> <17107.60140.948145.153144@tut.ibm.com> <1121185393.6917.59.camel@localhost.localdomain> <17107.61864.621401.440354@tut.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Kihon Technologies Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 12:49:41 -0400 Message-Id: <1121186981.6917.67.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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