| To: | Malcolm Beattie <mbeattie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [UPDATE] Fresh zerocopy patch on kernel.org |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 31 Jan 2001 17:51:50 -0800 (PST) |
| Cc: | linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20010131152653.C13345@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <14966.35438.429963.405587@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20010131152653.C13345@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
Malcolm Beattie writes: > David S. Miller writes: > > > > At the usual place: > > > > ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/davem/zerocopy-2.4.1-1.diff.gz > > Hmm, disappointing results here; maybe I've missed something. As discussed elsewhere there is a %10 to %15 performance hit for normal write()'s done with the new code. If you do your testing using sendfile() as the data source, you'll results ought to be wildly different and more encouraging. Later, David S. Miller davem@xxxxxxxxxx |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (nothing to do with ECN), kuznet |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH] dynamic IP support for 2.4.0 (SIOCKILLADDR), Ralf Baechle |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [UPDATE] Fresh zerocopy patch on kernel.org, Malcolm Beattie |
| Next by Thread: | [no subject], ynguo |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |