| To: | Andrew Morton <andrewm@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (nothing to do with ECN) |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 30 Jan 2001 04:52:40 -0800 (PST) |
| Cc: | lkml <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx" <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <3A76B72D.2DD3E640@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <3A728475.34CF841@xxxxxxxxxx> <3A726087.764CC02E@xxxxxxxxxx> <20010126222003.A11994@xxxxxxxxxxx> <14966.22671.446439.838872@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <3A76B72D.2DD3E640@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
Andrew Morton writes: > BTW: can you suggest why I'm not observing any change in NFS client > efficiency? As in "filecopy speed" or "cpu usage while copying a file"? The current fragmentation code eliminates a full SKB allocation and data copy on the NFS file data receive path in the client, CPU has to be saved compared to pre-zerocopy or something is very wrong. File copy speed, well you should be link speed limited as even without the zerocopy patches you ought to have enough cpu to keep it busy. Later, David S. Miller davem@xxxxxxxxxx |
| Previous by Date: | Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (nothing to do with ECN), Andrew Morton |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: More measurements, Andrew Morton |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (nothing to do with ECN), Andrew Morton |
| Next by Thread: | Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (nothing to do with ECN), Andrew Morton |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |