[lkml]   [2001]   [Jan]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Is sendfile all that sexy?
    In article <>,
    jamal <> wrote:
    >Before getting excited i had the courage to give plain 2.4.0-pre3 a whirl
    >and somethings bothered me.

    Note that "sendfile(fd, file, len)" is never going to be faster than
    "write(fd, userdata, len)".

    That's not the point of sendfile(). The point of sendfile() is to be
    faster than the _combination_ of:

    addr = mmap(file, ...len...);
    write(fd, addr, len);


    read(file, userdata, len);
    write(fd, userdata, len);

    and in your case you're not comparing sendfile() against this
    combination. You're just comparing sendfile() against a simple

    And no, I don't actually hink that sendfile() is all that hot. It was
    _very_ easy to implement, and can be considered a 5-minute hack to give
    a feature that fit very well in the MM architecture, and that the Apache
    folks had already been using on other architectures.

    The only obvious use for it is file serving, and as high-performance
    file serving tends to end up as a kernel module in the end anyway (the
    only hold-out is samba, and that's been discussed too), "sendfile()"
    really is more a proof of concept than anything else.

    Does anybody but apache actually use it?


    PS. I still _like_ sendfile(), even if the above sounds negative. It's
    basically a "cool feature" that has zero negative impact on the design
    of the system. It uses the same "do_generic_file_read()" that is used
    for normal "read()", and is also used by the loop device and by
    in-kernel fileserving. But it's not really "important".

    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:0.022 / U:8.400 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site