[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <E1OFAsd-0000Ra-1V@pomaz-ex.szeredi.hu>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 20:54:03 +0200
From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: miklos@...redi.hu, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
jens.axboe@...cle.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] fuse: support splice() reading from fuse device
On Thu, 20 May 2010, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Are there actual real loads that get improved? I don't care if it means
> that the improvement goes from three orders of magnitude to just a couple
> of percent. The "couple of percent on actual loads" is a lot more
> important than "many orders of magnitude on a made-up benchmark".
The reason I've been looking at zero copy for fuse is that embedded
people have been complaining about fuse's large CPU overhead for I/O.
So large in fact that it was having a performance impact even for
relatively slow devices. And most of that overhead comes from copying
data around.
So it's not the 20GB/s throughput that's interesting but the reduced
CPU overhead, especially on slower processors. Apart from cache
effects 20GB/s throughput with a null filesystem means 1% CPU at
200MB/s transfer speed with _any_ filesystem. Without bigger requests
that translates to 4% overhead and without zero copy about 15%.
That's on a core2/1.8GHz, with an embedded CPU the overhead reduction
would be even more significant.
Miklos
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists