Hey Dan, Has there been any progress on this? From: FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: [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@xxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: [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. -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
