Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 20 Apr 2002 03:48:28 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 20 Apr 2002 03:48:27 -0400 Received: from sv1.valinux.co.jp ([202.221.173.100]:45577 "HELO sv1.valinux.co.jp") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Sat, 20 Apr 2002 03:48:27 -0400 Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 16:47:22 +0900 (JST) Message-Id: <20020420.164722.90116338.taka@valinux.co.jp> To: trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] zerocopy NFS updated From: Hirokazu Takahashi In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Mew version 2.2 on Emacs 20.7 / Mule 4.0 (HANANOEN) 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, > > And it seems to be more important on UDP sendfile(). > > processes or threads sharing the same UDP socket would affect each other, > > while processes or threads on TCP sockets don't care about it as TCP > > connection is peer to peer. > > No. It is not the lack of peer-to-peer connections that gives rise to the > bottleneck, but the idea of several threads multiplexing sendfile() through a > single socket. Given a bad program design, it can be done over TCP too. > > The conclusion is that the programmer really ought to choose a different > design. For multimedia streaming, for instance, it makes sense to use 1 UDP > socket per thread rather than to multiplex the output through one socket. You mean, create UDP sockets which have the same port number? Yes we can if we use setsockopt(SO_REUSEADDR). And it could lead less contention between CPUs. Sounds good! Thank you, Hirokazu Takahashi. - 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/