Re: kvm_read() vs ioctl performance
- From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 07:31:47 +0000
In message <47E46682.4020403@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Julian Elischer writes:
tried a shared memory page?
No, but I built a test and kvm_read is 70 times
faster, in
case anyone is interested.
The shared memory approach is much better than that, you should
go that way.
Look at the adlink driver for an example.
--
Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@xxxxxxxxxxx | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-current@xxxxxxxxxxx mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx"
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: kvm_read() vs ioctl performance
- From: Barney Cordoba
- Re: kvm_read() vs ioctl performance
- References:
- Re: kvm_read() vs ioctl performance
- From: Julian Elischer
- Re: kvm_read() vs ioctl performance
- Prev by Date: Re: kvm_read() vs ioctl performance
- Next by Date: Re: CFR: New NFS Lock Manager
- Previous by thread: Re: kvm_read() vs ioctl performance
- Next by thread: Re: kvm_read() vs ioctl performance
- Index(es):