[lkml]   [2001]   [Jan]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Is sendfile all that sexy?

    On Mon, 22 Jan 2001, Val Henson wrote:

    > On Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 11:32:35AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
    > >
    > > However, for socket->socket, we would not have such an advantage. A
    > > socket->socket sendfile() would not avoid any copies the way the
    > > networking is done today. That _may_ change, of course. But it might
    > > not. And I'd rather tell people using sendfile() that you get EINVAL if
    > > it isn't able to optimize the transfer..
    > Yes, socket->socket sendfile is not that sexy. I actually did this
    > for 2.2.16 in the obvious (and stupid) way, copying data into a buffer
    > and writing it it out again. The performance was unsurprisingly
    > _exactly_ identical to a userspace read()/write() loop.

    The thing is, that if I knew that I could always beat the user-space
    numbers (by virtue of having fewer system calls etc), I would still
    consider "sendfile()" to be ok for it.

    But we can actually do _worse_ in sendfile() than in user-space
    applications. For example, userspace "read+write" may now more about
    packet boundary behaviour etc, which sendfile is totally clueless about,
    so a userspace application might actually get _better_ performance by
    doing it by hand.

    That's why I currently want sendfile() to only work for the things we
    _know_ we can do better.


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:17    [W:0.029 / U:2.804 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site