Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 18:16:34 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 18:16:24 -0500 Received: from warden.digitalinsight.com ([208.29.163.2]:42922 "HELO warden.diginsite.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 18:16:12 -0500 Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 15:13:08 -0800 (PST) From: David Lang To: "David S. Miller" cc: Andrew Morton , lkml , "netdev@oss.sgi.com" Subject: Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (nothing to do with ECN) In-Reply-To: <14971.15897.432460.25166@pizda.ninka.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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 , > "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/