Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 04:53:58 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 04:53:57 -0400 Received: from pat.uio.no ([129.240.130.16]:12737 "EHLO pat.uio.no") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 04:53:56 -0400 To: Hirokazu Takahashi Cc: jakob@unthought.net, davem@redhat.com, ak@suse.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] zerocopy NFS updated In-Reply-To: <20020414.212308.33849971.davem@redhat.com> <20020416.100302.129343787.taka@valinux.co.jp> <20020416034120.R18116@unthought.net> <20020418.140155.85418444.taka@valinux.co.jp> From: Trond Myklebust Date: 18 Apr 2002 10:53:31 +0200 Message-ID: Lines: 19 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.1 (Cuyahoga Valley) 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 >>>>> " " == Hirokazu Takahashi writes: > Hi, I've been thinking about your comment, and I realized it > was a good suggestion. There are no problem with the zerocopy > NFS, but If you want to use UDP sendfile for streaming or > something like that, you wouldn't get good performance. Surely one can work around this in userland without inventing a load of ad-hoc schemes in the kernel socket layer? If one doesn't want to create a pool of sockets in order to service the different threads, one can use generic methods such as sys_readahead() in order to ensure that the relevant data gets paged in prior to hogging the socket. There is no difference between UDP and TCP sendfile() in this respect. Cheers, Trond - 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/