Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Fri, 2 Feb 2001 15:13:08 -0800 (PST) | From | David Lang <> | Subject | Re: 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/
|  |