| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PLEASE-TESTME] Zerocopy networking patch, 2.4.0-1 |
| From: | Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 9 Jan 2001 16:40:46 +0100 (CET) |
| Cc: | "Stephen C. Tweedie" <sct@xxxxxxxxxx>, Rik van Riel <riel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>, <hch@xxxxxxxxxx>, <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <20010109102525.Q26953@ns> |
| Reply-to: | <mingo@xxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Now, the interesting bit here is that the processes can grow to be
> pretty large (200M+, up as high as 500M, higher if we let it ;) ) and what
> happens with MOSIX is that entire processes get sent over the wire to
> other machines for work. MOSIX will also attempt to rebalance the load on
> all of the machines in the cluster and whatnot so it can often be moving
> processes back and forth.
then you'll love the zerocopy patch :-) Just use sendfile() or specify
MSG_NOCOPY to sendmsg(), and you'll see effective memory-to-card
DMA-and-checksumming on cards that support it.
the discussion with Stephen is about various device-to-device schemes.
(which Mosix i dont think wants to use. Mosix wants to use memory to
device zero-copy, right?)
Ingo
|
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PLEASE-TESTME] Zerocopy networking patch, 2.4.0-1, Ingo Molnar |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PLEASE-TESTME] Zerocopy networking patch, 2.4.0-1, Benjamin C.R. LaHaise |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PLEASE-TESTME] Zerocopy networking patch, 2.4.0-1, Stephen Frost |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PLEASE-TESTME] Zerocopy networking patch, 2.4.0-1, Stephen Frost |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |