Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 13 May 1999 18:12:34 -0700 | From | (John Myers) | Subject | sendfile() |
| |
Ingo Molnar wrote: > one reason we made syscalls so lightweight is to avoid silly > 'multi-purpose' conglomerate system calls like NT has. sendfile() has > mainly not been added to avoid system calls being done, but because it's > strong (and unique) conceptual foundations. Linux syscalls will be even > more lightweight in the future. (i have a prototype patch that makes them > cost 0.30 microseconds) Do you see the point, again an apples to oranges > problem.
System-call overhead is not the problem with omitting a header argument to sendfile(). The problem with omitting a header argument to sendfile() is that the write() causes the header to be sent out as a short packet. When the application next calls sendfile(), it gets nailed by Nagle's algorithm.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |