[lkml]   [2001]   [Jan]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PLEASE-TESTME] Zerocopy networking patch, 2.4.0-1

On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Manfred Spraul wrote:

> > 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.

there *is* a cost of having a shared VM - and this is i suspect

> Is is possible to move the responsibility for maitaining the copy to
> the caller?

this needs a completion event i believe.

> 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.

i believe a signal-based thing would be the right (and scalable) solution
- the signal handler could free() the buffer.

this makes sense even in the VM-assisted MSG_NOCOPY case, since one wants
to do garbage collection of these in-flight buffers anyway. (not for
correctness but for performance reasons - free()-ing and immediately
reusing such a buffer would generate a COW.)


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 13:28    [W:0.072 / U:0.024 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site