netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (nothing to do with ECN)

To: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (nothing to do with ECN)
From: David Lang <dlang@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 15:13:08 -0800 (PST)
Cc: Andrew Morton <andrewm@xxxxxxxxxx>, lkml <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx" <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <14971.15897.432460.25166@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
right, assuming that there is enough sendfile() benifit to overcome the
write() penalty from the stuff that can't be cached or sent from a file.

my question was basicly are there enough places where sendfile would
actually be used to make it a net gain.

David Lang

On Fri, 2 Feb 2001, David S. Miller wrote:

> Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 15:09:13 -0800 (PST)
> From: David S. Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: David Lang <dlang@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Andrew Morton <andrewm@xxxxxxxxxx>, lkml <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>      "netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx" <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (nothing to do with ECN)
>
>
> David Lang writes:
>  > Thanks, that info on sendfile makes sense for the fileserver situation.
>  > for webservers we will have to see (many/most CGI's look at stuff from the
>  > client so I still have doubts as to how much use cacheing will be)
>
> Also note that the decreased CPU utilization resulting from
> zerocopy sendfile leaves more CPU available for CGI execution.
>
> This was a point I forgot to make.
>
> Later,
> David S. Miller
> davem@xxxxxxxxxx
>

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