lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Feb]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (nothing to do with ECN)
right, assuming that there is enough sendfile() benifit to overcome the
write() penalty from the stuff that can't be cached or sent from a file.

my question was basicly are there enough places where sendfile would
actually be used to make it a net gain.

David Lang

On Fri, 2 Feb 2001, David S. Miller wrote:

> Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 15:09:13 -0800 (PST)
> From: David S. Miller <davem@redhat.com>
> To: David Lang <dlang@diginsite.com>
> Cc: Andrew Morton <andrewm@uow.edu.au>, lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
> "netdev@oss.sgi.com" <netdev@oss.sgi.com>
> Subject: Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (nothing to do with ECN)
>
>
> David Lang writes:
> > Thanks, that info on sendfile makes sense for the fileserver situation.
> > for webservers we will have to see (many/most CGI's look at stuff from the
> > client so I still have doubts as to how much use cacheing will be)
>
> Also note that the decreased CPU utilization resulting from
> zerocopy sendfile leaves more CPU available for CGI execution.
>
> This was a point I forgot to make.
>
> Later,
> David S. Miller
> davem@redhat.com
>
-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:28    [W:0.042 / U:1.988 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site