Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Wed, 10 Jan 2001 13:03:56 +0100 | From | Manfred Spraul <> | Subject | Re: [PLEASE-TESTME] Zerocopy networking patch, 2.4.0-1 |
| |
Ingo Molnar wrote: > > On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Manfred Spraul wrote: > > > That means sendmsg() changes the page tables? I measures > > smp_call_function on my Dual Pentium 350, and it took around 1950 cpu > > ticks. > > well, this is a performance problem if you are using threads. For normal > processes there is no need for a SMP cross-call, there TLB flushes are > local only. > But that would be ugly as hell: so apache 2.0 would become slower with MSG_NOCOPY, whereas samba 2.2 would become faster.
Is is possible to move the responsibility for maitaining the copy to the caller?
e.g. use msg_control, and then the caller can request either that a signal is sent when that data is transfered, or that a variable is set to 0.
-- Manfred - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |