[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:0.045 / U:40.692 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site