Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262543AbTIJLoi (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Sep 2003 07:44:38 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262587AbTIJLoi (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Sep 2003 07:44:38 -0400 Received: from dyn-ctb-203-221-72-196.webone.com.au ([203.221.72.196]:43526 "EHLO chimp.local.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262543AbTIJLog (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Sep 2003 07:44:36 -0400 Message-ID: <3F5F0E9D.6090606@cyberone.com.au> Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 21:44:29 +1000 From: Nick Piggin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030827 Debian/1.4-3 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Luca Veraldi CC: linux-kernel Subject: Re: Efficient IPC mechanism on Linux References: <00f201c376f8$231d5e00$beae7450@wssupremo> <20030909175821.GL16080@Synopsys.COM> <001d01c37703$8edc10e0$36af7450@wssupremo> <20030910064508.GA25795@Synopsys.COM> <015601c3777c$8c63b2e0$5aaf7450@wssupremo> <1063185795.5021.4.camel@laptop.fenrus.com> <20030910095255.GA21313@mail.jlokier.co.uk> <20030910120729.C14352@devserv.devel.redhat.com> <20030910103752.GC21313@mail.jlokier.co.uk> <20030910124151.C9878@devserv.devel.redhat.com> <02bc01c37789$ebfa9a40$5aaf7450@wssupremo> <3F5F0820.3090003@cyberone.com.au> <036a01c3778e$ebadc080$5aaf7450@wssupremo> In-Reply-To: <036a01c3778e$ebadc080$5aaf7450@wssupremo> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1381 Lines: 44 Luca Veraldi wrote: >>Hi Luca, >>There was a zero-copy pipe implementation floating around a while ago >>I think. Did you have a look at that? IIRC it had advantages and >>disadvantages over regular pipes in performance. >> > >Sorry, but i subscripted this mailing-list only one day ago. >Advantages and disadvantages depends on what actually you implement >and on how you do that. > Yes you're right. Just search for it. It would be interesting to compare them with your implementation. > >I can only say that capabilities are a disadvantage only with very very >short messages >(that is, a few bytes). And this disadvantage is theoretically demonstrable. > >But, let's say also that such elementary messages are meaningful only in the >kernel >and for kernel purposes. > >User processes are another tail. > I'm not too sure, I was just pointing you to zero copy pipes because they did have some disadvantages which is why they weren't included in the kernel. Quite possibly your mechanism doesn't suffer from these. What would really help convince everyone is, of course, "real world" benchmarks. I like your ideas though ;) - 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/