[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]
Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH 1/2] dm-userspace: use ring buffer instead of system call
- From: FUJITA Tomonori <fujita tomonori lab ntt co jp>
- To: danms us ibm com
- Cc: dm-devel redhat com
- Subject: Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH 1/2] dm-userspace: use ring buffer instead of system call
- Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 03:26:35 +0900
Hey Dan,
Has there been any progress on this?
From: FUJITA Tomonori <fujita tomonori lab ntt co jp>
Subject: Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH 1/2] dm-userspace: use ring buffer instead of system call
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 23:36:31 +0900
> From: Dan Smith <danms us ibm com>
> Subject: Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH 1/2] dm-userspace: use ring buffer instead of system call
> Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 07:01:41 -0700
>
> > FT> It's against on the top of the following patches:
> >
> > Would you mind sending a patch against a vanilla tree? I'm having a
> > hard time getting the patches (old and new) to apply cleanly and in
> > the right order.
>
> No problem. Here's the patch against 2.6.18
>
>
> > FT> In my experiments, the ring buffer interface provides 10% better
> > FT> write performance with disktest benchmark, though dbench gives
> > FT> comparable performances (about 340 MB/s).
> >
> > This is good to hear. I am interested in testing it in some of my
> > real-life situations where performance is slower due to the high
> > latency. This mostly affects the boot time of Xen guests.
> >
> > I have added kernel caching back into my local version (which only
> > adds 200 lines). It improves Xen guest boot performance
> > significantly, but does not affect dbench performance. I will be
> > interested to see what kind of performance I can get from your
> > ringbuffer version, as well as possibly a combination of the two.
>
> I see. I'm looking forward to the results. Then I'll send some other
> patches.
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]