lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Nov]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: OT: why no file copy() libc/syscall ??
On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 12:22:14PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Followup to: <20031111085323.M8854@devserv.devel.redhat.com>
> By author: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
> In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
> > >
> > > 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.

See ftp://ftp.suse.com/pub/people/andrea/cp-sendfile/

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 majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:58    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans