| To: | Andrew Morton <andrewm@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (nothing to do with ECN) |
| From: | Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | 02 Feb 2001 13:14:33 +0100 |
| Cc: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>, lkml <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx" <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | Andrew Morton's message of "Fri, 02 Feb 2001 21:12:50 +1100" |
| References: | <3A728475.34CF841@uow.edu.au> <3A726087.764CC02E@uow.edu.au> <20010126222003.A11994@vitelus.com> <3A728475.34CF841@uow.edu.au> <14966.22671.446439.838872@pizda.ninka.net> <3A7A8822.CC5D8E4E@uow.edu.au> |
| Sender: | owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
>>>>> " " == Andrew Morton <andrewm@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Much the same story. Big increase in sendfile() efficiency,
> small drop in send() and NFS unchanged.
This is normal. The server doesn't do zero copy reads, but instead
copies from the page cache into an NFS-specific buffer using
file.f_op->read(). Alexey and Dave's changes are therefore unlikely to
register on NFS performance (other than on CPU use as has been
mentioned before) until we implement a sendfile-like scheme for knfsd
over TCP.
I've been wanting to start doing that (and also to finish the client
conversion to use the TCP zero-copy), but I'm pretty pressed for time
at the moment.
Cheers,
Trond
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (nothing to do with ECN), Andrew Morton |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (nothing to do with ECN), David Lang |
| 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), David Lang |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |