| To: | andrewm@xxxxxxxxxx (Andrew Morton) |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (nothing to do with ECN) |
| From: | kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| Date: | Tue, 30 Jan 2001 23:15:20 +0300 (MSK) |
| Cc: | netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <3A76D6A4.2385185E@uow.edu.au> from "Andrew Morton" at Jan 30, 1 06:15:01 pm |
| Sender: | owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
Hello! > The box has 130 mbyte/sec memory write bandwidth, so saving > a copy should save 10% of this. (Wanders away, scratching > head...) Did you hope to get negative load? It is unlikely. 8) You had nic->skb mem->page mem->user mem and saved only one copy, moreover that copy which happens back-to-back through cache. BTW no need to scratch head, profiler exists to help to answer such questions. Alexey |
| Previous by Date: | Re: More measurements, kuznet |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: More measurements, Jes Sorensen |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (nothing to do with ECN), David S. Miller |
| Next by Thread: | Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (nothing to do with ECN), Andrew Morton |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |