| To: | "Stephen C. Tweedie" <sct@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PLEASE-TESTME] Zerocopy networking patch, 2.4.0-1 |
| From: | Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 9 Jan 2001 16:37:26 +0100 (CET) |
| Cc: | Rik van Riel <riel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>, <hch@xxxxxxxxxx>, <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <20010109151725.D9321@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Reply-to: | <mingo@xxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
> Jes has also got hard numbers for the performance advantages of
> jumbograms on some of the networks he's been using, and you ain't
> going to get udp jumbograms through a page-by-page API, ever.
i know the performance advantages of jumbograms (typically when it's over
a local network), it's undisputed. Still i dont see why it should be
impossible to do effective UDP via a single-page interface. Eg. buffering
of outgoing pages could be supported, and MSG_MORE in sendmsg() used to
indicate end of stream. This is why ->writepage() has a 'more' flag (and
tcp_sendpage() has a flag as well).
Ingo
|
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PLEASE-TESTME] Zerocopy networking patch, 2.4.0-1, Stephen C. Tweedie |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PLEASE-TESTME] Zerocopy networking patch, 2.4.0-1, Ingo Molnar |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PLEASE-TESTME] Zerocopy networking patch, 2.4.0-1, Stephen C. Tweedie |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PLEASE-TESTME] Zerocopy networking patch, 2.4.0-1, David S. Miller |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |