| To: | mingo@xxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PLEASE-TESTME] Zerocopy networking patch, 2.4.0-1 |
| From: | Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 9 Jan 2001 17:29:29 +0000 (GMT) |
| Cc: | alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Alan Cox), sct@xxxxxxxxxx (Stephen C. Tweedie), hch@xxxxxxxxxx (Christoph Hellwig), davem@xxxxxxxxxx (David S. Miller), riel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <Pine.LNX.4.30.0101091743090.5932-100000@e2> from "Ingo Molnar" at Jan 09, 2001 05:48:32 PM |
| Sender: | owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
> ever seen, this is why i quoted it - the talk was about block-IO > performance, and Stephen said that our block IO sucks. It used to suck, > but in 2.4, with the right patch from Jens, it doesnt suck anymore. ) Thats fine. Get me 128K-512K chunks nicely streaming into my raid controller and I'll be a happy man I don't have a problem with the claim that its not the per page stuff and plugging that breaks ll_rw_blk. If there is evidence contradicting the SGI stuff it's very interesting |
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PLEASE-TESTME] Zerocopy networking patch, 2.4.0-1, Ingo Molnar |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PLEASE-TESTME] Zerocopy networking patch, 2.4.0-1, Benjamin C.R. LaHaise |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PLEASE-TESTME] Zerocopy networking patch, 2.4.0-1, Ingo Molnar |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PLEASE-TESTME] Zerocopy networking patch, 2.4.0-1, Jens Axboe |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |