Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 19:59:50 -0700 (PDT) From: Barney Cordoba <barney_cordoba@yahoo.com> To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: kvm_read() vs ioctl performance Message-ID: <494618.95957.qm@web63906.mail.re1.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <47E46682.4020403@elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--- Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> wrote:
> Barney Cordoba wrote:
> > --- Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Barney Cordoba wrote:
> >>> I have an app which reads stats from the kernel
> >>> periodically, and there can be a lot of
> >> iterations,
> >>> sometimes 20,000 or more. I'm thinking of
> >> converting
> >>> from an ioctl method to kvm_read(). KVM is
> >> certainly
> >>> simpler, but its not clear what overhead is
> >> involved,
> >>> since kvm_read() likely has to call the kernel
> >> also.
> >>> Does anyone have a handle on the difference in
> >>> overhead, assuming that the ioctl call is to a
> >> module
> >>> which does nothing more than copy the data and
> >> return?
> >>
> >> tried a shared memory page?
> >
> > No, but I built a test and kvm_read is 70 times
> > faster, in
> > case anyone is interested.
>
> cool..
> the only downside is that we are trying to get away
> from kvm direct
> access. (which is why a shared page might give the
> same result with a
> stable API which is not libkvm... BTW on an SMP
> machine you have
> no way to ensure that your stats are coherent if you
> use libkvm.
The app is portable, and I'd prefer not to have
different methods for LINUX and FreeBSD. When you say
"coherent", what exactly do you mean?
Barney
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?494618.95957.qm>