[lkml]   [2001]   [Feb]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
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 <>
> To: David Lang <>
> Cc: Andrew Morton <>, lkml <>,
> "" <>
> 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
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:0.054 / U:4.596 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site