netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

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

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>