| To: | Andrew Morton <andrewm@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (nothing to do with ECN) |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 30 Jan 2001 14:28:27 -0800 (PST) |
| Cc: | lkml <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx" <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <3A76D6A4.2385185E@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <3A76B72D.2DD3E640@xxxxxxxxxx> <3A728475.34CF841@xxxxxxxxxx> <3A726087.764CC02E@xxxxxxxxxx> <20010126222003.A11994@xxxxxxxxxxx> <14966.22671.446439.838872@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <14966.47384.971741.939842@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <3A76D6A4.2385185E@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
Andrew Morton writes: > The box has 130 mbyte/sec memory write bandwidth, so saving > a copy should save 10% of this. (Wanders away, scratching > head...) Are you sure your measurment program will account properly for all system cycles spent in softnet processing? This is where the bulk of the cpu cycle savings will occur. Later, David S. Miller davem@xxxxxxxxxx |
| Previous by Date: | Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (nothing to do with ECN), David S. Miller |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (nothing to do with ECN), Andrew Morton |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (nothing to do with ECN), kuznet |
| Next by Thread: | Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (nothing to do with ECN), Andrew Morton |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |