Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 08:41:29 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 08:41:12 -0500 Received: from iisc.ernet.in ([144.16.64.3]:9997 "EHLO iisc.ernet.in") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 08:40:54 -0500 From: anand@eis.iisc.ernet.in (SVR Anand) Message-Id: <200011091340.TAA05912@eis.iisc.ernet.in> Subject: Buffer copying latency To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 19:10:42 +0530 (GMT+05:30) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, Sorry if it is a naive question. I would like to know if there are any measurements made on a typical Pentium machine with respect to the latency for buffer copying from the user to kernel and vice versa. While there are many papers, and arguments that attempt to ban buffering copying of any sort, especially the ones that cross protection boubdaries, I am searching in vain to obtain the numbers that highlight the overheads. Can you help me getting this information ? It also causes a bit of worry that the recent trends seem to violate the nice conventional Unix philosophy in the name of performance,... just because the current RAM access speeds are not upto the mark. What would happen if some technology breakthrough occurs and the RAM access times fall drastically ? Regards Anand - 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/