[lkml]   [2006]   [Feb]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Which is simpler? (Was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.)

On Monday 06 February 2006 14:04, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 06 2006, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > > I'll get same bandwidth as you, without need for async I/O. Async I/O
> > > > is not really a feature, suspend speed is. (There are existing
> > > > interfaces for doing AIO from userspace, anyway, but I'm pretty sure
> > > > they will not be needed
> > >
> > > If you keep writing single pages sync, you sure as hell wont get
> > > anywhere near async io in speed...
> >
> > well, we can perfectly do 128K block... just read 128K into userspace
> > buffer, flush it via single write to block device. That should get us
> > very close enough to media speed.
> That'll help naturally, 128k sync blocks will be very close to async
> performance for most cases. Most cases here being drives with write back
> caching enabled, if that is disabled async will still be a big win.
> Is there any reason _not_ to just go with async io? Usually the code is
> just as simple (or simpler), since the in-kernel stuff is inherently
> async to begin with.

Actually the userland tools we're working on use async I/O. [There's no real
need for sync, I think.] Still we write one page at a time, for now, so the
I/O performance is not that much better than for the built-in swsusp, but it
_is_ better.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2006-02-06 14:47    [W:0.481 / U:11.872 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site