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/
