[lkml]   [2001]   [Jan]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Is sendfile all that sexy?
On Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 11:32:35AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> In article <Pine.LNX.4.30.0101171454340.29536-100000@baphomet.bogo.bogus>,
> Ben Mansell <> wrote:
> >
> >The current sendfile() has the limitation that it can't read data from
> >a socket. Would it be another 5-minute hack to remove this limitation, so
> >you could sendfile between sockets? Now _that_ would be sexy :)
> I don't think that would be all that sexy at all.
> You have to realize, that sendfile() is meant as an optimization, by
> being able to re-use the same buffers that act as the in-kernel page
> cache as buffers for sending data. So you avoid one copy.
> 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.

There is a use for an optimized socket->socket transfer - proxying
high speed TCP connections. It would be exciting if the zerocopy
networking framework led to a decent socket->socket transfer.

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 13:13    [W:0.242 / U:1.412 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site