From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Sun,  9 Jan 2011 16:59:44 -0500
To: 9fans@9fans.net
Message-ID: <8b7978fc1882cac9d7511deaf3f179ab@ladd.quanstro.net>
In-Reply-To: <20110109211753.79CFB5B42@mail.bitblocks.com>
References: <16094d5a594bfa72dd0e9ac6f3f8b31c@plug.quanstro.net>
	<AANLkTin9Ft5OS2mgJ3y4Sh+DbpFvgPvCVh-hxJoT2Ed0@mail.gmail.com>
	<20110109195426.D1ED35B42@mail.bitblocks.com>
	<AANLkTi=RJAC64xDb3uWYqrRHjhwJ_mh5FiuMr=902VE=@mail.gmail.com>
	<20110109211753.79CFB5B42@mail.bitblocks.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] fs performance
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 931951fa-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> - other local optimizations (does plan9 pay marshalling,
>   unmarshalling cost for node local communication?)

not unless it hits the mount driver.  since a user level fs is
a 9p server, it is clear that io must go through the mnt driver
and kernel fileservers or pipes need not.

> - pushing performance sensitive code into kernel (to reduce
>   context switches).

i never understood the point of plan 9 to be to hold
the performance crown at all costs.

- erik