From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753679Ab0IYWUR (ORCPT ); Sat, 25 Sep 2010 18:20:17 -0400 Received: from ogre.sisk.pl ([217.79.144.158]:41576 "EHLO ogre.sisk.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751178Ab0IYWUP (ORCPT ); Sat, 25 Sep 2010 18:20:15 -0400 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: Nigel Cunningham Subject: Re: Nigel's current for-rafael queue Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2010 00:19:37 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (Linux/2.6.36-rc5-rjw+; KDE/4.4.4; x86_64; ; ) Cc: Linux PM , LKML , "TuxOnIce-devel" References: <1285388224-10012-1-git-send-email-nigel@tuxonice.net> In-Reply-To: <1285388224-10012-1-git-send-email-nigel@tuxonice.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-2" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201009260019.37438.rjw@sisk.pl> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Saturday, September 25, 2010, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > Hi Rafael. Hi Nigel, > Please find attached a slightly updated version of the patchset I sent > a few months ago. The main change is that I've prepended and additional > patch which lets the user see the speed at which the image is being > read and written. This is accomplished by recording the MB/s in a single > byte in the image header, and using a couple of __nosavedata variables > to get the data back through the atomic restore. I realise the char limits > us to 255MB/s at the moment. In future patches, I intend to address this > by storing the data in a 'proper' image header (it's a real problem - > TuxOnIce reads and writes on the same set up at speeds around 250MB/s). > > Results on my Dell XPS M1530, which has an SSD hard drive are: > > With just patch 1 applied: > Attempt 1: Write 74MB/s; Read 52MB/s > Attempt 2: Write 68MB/s; Read 52MB/s > Attempt 3: Write 73MB/s; Read 53MB/s > > With the whole sequence: > Attempt 1: Write 181MB/s; Read 52MB/s > Attempt 2: Write 156MB/s; Read 53MB/s > Attempt 3: Write 160MB/s; Read 52MB/s Thanks for the patches, they look like a real improvement to me. I only had a couple of minor comments, sent separately in replies to individual patches. I'd like to push this series for 2.6.37, if the comments are addressed timely. Best regards, Rafael