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    [W:0.020 / U:35.556 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site