[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4EC137F6.1050509@ilyx.ru>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 19:47:02 +0400
From: Ilya Zykov <ilya@...x.ru>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
CC: Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>, Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] TTY: tty flip buffer optimisation.
Alan Cox wrote:
>> Hi, the results are indeed nice. However is there any *real* load other
>> than this tailor-made microbenchmark where the added code complexity is
>> worth it?
>
> I'm wondering if we need the complexity in the first place. Certainly 256
> does seem a bit small for pty/tty traffic. A 'real world' benchmark would
> be an ls -lR / on a machine with a fast graphics card or in console mode
>
> ie
>
> ls -lR / # prime cache
> time ls -lR /
>
> and there are cases where people do a lot of traffic over a pty like this
> so I don't think it's entirely fake.
>
> I don't like the complexity but we could certainly go from using 256 byte
> buffers to "tty->buf.bufsize" and make it configurable without
> that complexity.
>
> Alan
>
For avoid complexity we need remove free buffer at all.
And use kmalloc()-kfree() for every chunk. Don't need tty_buffer_find().
It will be fast and easy.
Ilya.
--
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