David Lang writes: > Thanks, that info on sendfile makes sense for the fileserver situation. > for webservers we will have to see (many/most CGI's look at stuff from the > client so I still have doubts as to how much use cacheing will be) Also note that the decreased CPU utilization resulting from zerocopy sendfile leaves more CPU available for CGI execution. This was a point I forgot to make. 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/
- Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (nothing to d... David S. Miller
- Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (nothing ... David S. Miller
- Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (noth... David S. Miller
- Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy ... David S. Miller
- Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (noth... David S. Miller
- Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (nothing ... Andrew Morton
- Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (noth... Trond Myklebust
- Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (noth... David Lang
- Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy ... David S. Miller
- Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly s... David Lang
- Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly s... David S. Miller
- Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly s... David Lang
- Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly s... Jeff Barrow
- Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly s... David S. Miller
- Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly s... James Sutherland
- Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (nothing to do with EC... Ion Badulescu