| To: | David Lang <dlang@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (nothing to do with ECN) |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 2 Feb 2001 15:31:41 -0800 (PST) |
| Cc: | Andrew Morton <andrewm@xxxxxxxxxx>, lkml <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx" <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <Pine.LNX.4.31.0102021511330.1221-100000@dlang.diginsite.com> |
| References: | <14971.15897.432460.25166@pizda.ninka.net> <Pine.LNX.4.31.0102021511330.1221-100000@dlang.diginsite.com> |
| Sender: | owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
David Lang writes: > 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. There are non-performance issues as well (really, all of these points have been mentioned in this thread btw). One is that since paged SKBs use only single-order page allocations, the memory allocation subsystem is stressed less than the current scheme where SLAB allocates multi-order pages to satisfy allocations of linear SKB data buffers. This has consequences and benefits system wide. 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), Jeff Barrow |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (nothing to do with ECN), James Sutherland |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (nothing to do with ECN), Jeff Barrow |
| Next by Thread: | Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (nothing to do with ECN), James Sutherland |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |