Andrew Morton writes: > BTW: can you suggest why I'm not observing any change in NFS client > efficiency? As in "filecopy speed" or "cpu usage while copying a file"? The current fragmentation code eliminates a full SKB allocation and data copy on the NFS file data receive path in the client, CPU has to be saved compared to pre-zerocopy or something is very wrong. File copy speed, well you should be link speed limited as even without the zerocopy patches you ought to have enough cpu to keep it busy. Later, David S. Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (nothing to do with ECN) Andrew Morton
- Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (nothing to do wit... Aaron Lehmann
- Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (nothing to do... Andrew Morton
- Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (nothing t... Ion Badulescu
- Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (nothi... Andrew Morton
- Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (nothing t... David S. Miller
- Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (nothi... David S. Miller
- Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (... David S. Miller
- Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly se... David S. Miller
- Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (... David S. Miller
- Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (nothi... Andrew Morton
- Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (... Trond Myklebust
- Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (... David Lang
- Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly se... David S. Miller
- Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairl... David Lang
- Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairl... David S. Miller
- Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairl... David Lang