right, assuming that there is enough sendfile() benifit to overcome the
write() penalty from the stuff that can't be cached or sent from a file.
my question was basicly are there enough places where sendfile would
actually be used to make it a net gain.
David Lang
On Fri, 2 Feb 2001, David S. Miller wrote:
> Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 15:09:13 -0800 (PST)
> From: David S. Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: David Lang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, lkml <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (nothing to do with ECN)
>
>
> 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/
