On 4/12/07, Dean Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
There may not be any degradation. The performance differences come if you have to replace every syscall with an open/ioctl/close cycle. This
I'm not concerned with open/close overhead -- the uses I'm referring to fall back to ioctl fd caching if syscall(AFS_SYSCALL,...) probes fail during application startup. What I am concerned about are call path latency differences, and far more importantly, locking model differences, between syscall() and ioctl() on our supported unix platforms. For the project I'm working on, the path into the kernel module has to be lockless, and call latency needs to be very low, with a small jitter. -- Tom Keiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
