Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (nothing to do with ECN)

[David Lang]

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 <[e-mail]>
> To: David Lang <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Andrew Morton <[e-mail]>, lkml <[e-mail]>,
>      "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> 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
> [e-mail]
>