netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PLEASE-TESTME] Zerocopy networking patch, 2.4.0-1

To: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PLEASE-TESTME] Zerocopy networking patch, 2.4.0-1
From: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 09 Jan 2001 14:52:40 +0100
Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: "David S. Miller"'s message of "Sun, 7 Jan 2001 17:24:24 -0800"
References: <200101080124.RAA08134@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>> " " == David S Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

     > I've put a patch up for testing on the kernel.org mirrors:

     > /pub/linux/kernel/people/davem/zerocopy-2.4.0-1.diff.gz

.....

     > Finally, regardless of networking card, there should be a
     > measurable performance boost for NFS clients with this patch
     > due to the delayed fragment coalescing.  KNFSD does not take
     > full advantage of this facility yet.

Hi David,

I don't really want to be chiming in with another 'make it a kiobuf',
but given that you already have written 'do_tcp_sendpages()' why did
you make sock->ops->sendpage() take the single page as an argument
rather than just have it take the 'struct page **'?

I would have thought one of the main interests of doing something like
this would be to allow us to speed up large writes to the socket for
ncpfs/knfsd/nfs/smbfs/...
After all, in both the case of the client WRITE requests and the
server READ responses, we end up with a set of several pages that just
need to be pushed down the network without further ado. Unless I
misunderstood the code, it seems that do_tcp_sendpages() fits the bill
nicely...

Cheers,
  Trond

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>