[lkml]   [2003]   [Nov]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: OT: why no file copy() libc/syscall ??
    On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 12:22:14PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
    > Followup to: <>
    > By author: Jakub Jelinek <>
    > In newsgroup:
    > > >
    > > > Actually, I think we should have a:
    > > >
    > > > long copy_fd_to_fd (int src, int dst, int len)
    > > >
    > > > type of systemcall.
    > >
    > > We have one, sendfile(2).
    > >
    > It would be very nice if we could (a) expand the uses of sendfile(2),
    > and (b) have the libc do the fallback to read/write/mmap as needed.

    I actually hacked cp for a while and it improved cp some point percent
    on normal machines.


    the main downside and the reason it wasn't applied IIRC is the lack of
    interruption of sendfile, basically for an huge file it would take a
    while before C^c has any effect. The kernel isn't interrupting the
    syscall. This is no different from a huge read or write syscall (but
    read/write are never huge or the buffer would need to be huge too, not
    the case for sendfile that works zerocopy), so in theory we could
    workaround it by entering/exiting kernel multiple times just to allow
    the signal to be handled like in the read/write case.
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:58    [W:0.029 / U:30.648 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site