On 7/11/05, Ronald G. Minnich <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Eric Van Hensbergen wrote:
>
> > But I thought that was the whole point - to convince them to use 9P for
> > resource sharing versus the current stuff. Using 9P for transport alone
> > just doesn't make sense to me -- let's sell them the whole enchilada.
>
> you'll lose on the performance front. I'd still like to be able to walk to
> a resource in the kernel and get a channel for it, and then use channel
> reads and writes in the kernel to write the fifo queues.
>
With the new v9fs 2.1 server architecture, I should be able to go zero
copy all the way and match their performance -- at least that's the
plan.
>
> Right now, you use a dedicated driver (which is how you name it -- you
> know the driver to use) and drive the fifo queues.
>
I know, I think that sucks. No reason this can't be unified. The
performance sensative bits are always reads and writes -- if you can
avoid copies, and I think we can -- particularly over a shared memory
interface, then you should have equivilent performance -- just in a
unified, easy to manage wrapper -- plus we'll have built in fail-over
semantics for certain resources with Gorka's new recover stuff.
-eric
