| To: | David Lang <dlang@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (nothing to do with ECN) |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 2 Feb 2001 15:09:13 -0800 (PST) |
| Cc: | Andrew Morton <andrewm@xxxxxxxxxx>, lkml <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx" <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <Pine.LNX.4.31.0102021456000.1221-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <14971.14511.765806.838208@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.31.0102021456000.1221-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
David Lang writes: > Thanks, that info on sendfile makes sense for the fileserver situation. > for webservers we will have to see (many/most CGI's look at stuff from the > client so I still have doubts as to how much use cacheing will be) Also note that the decreased CPU utilization resulting from zerocopy sendfile leaves more CPU available for CGI execution. This was a point I forgot to make. Later, David S. Miller davem@xxxxxxxxxx |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (nothing to do with ECN), David Lang |
|---|---|
| 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), David Lang |
| Next by Thread: | Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (nothing to do with ECN), David Lang |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |