From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 2 Jan 2003 00:56:24 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 2 Jan 2003 00:56:24 -0500 Received: from rth.ninka.net ([216.101.162.244]:48281 "EHLO rth.ninka.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 2 Jan 2003 00:56:23 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH] TCP Zero Copy for mmapped files From: "David S. Miller" To: Larry McVoy Cc: Thomas Ogrisegg , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20021230012937.GC5156@work.bitmover.com> References: <20021230010953.GA17731@window.dhis.org> <20021230012937.GC5156@work.bitmover.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.8 (1.0.8-10) Date: 01 Jan 2003 22:37:01 -0800 Message-Id: <1041489421.3703.6.camel@rth.ninka.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 2002-12-29 at 17:29, Larry McVoy wrote: > How about putting this into a different function? It's a lot to add > inline for a special case. This patch also has a ton of other problems: 1) Does not handle writes that straddle multiple VMAs 2) We do not want to encourage people to use this mmap scheme anyways. The mmap way consumes precious VM space, whereas the sendfile scheme does not. 3) Finally, I'm very dubious about the "this is faster than TUX claim". Firstly because you've not provided your self-made HTTP server so that others can try to reproduce your benchmark. And secondly because you haven't indicated if your self-made HTTP server is as full featured as TUX or not. And thirdly you haven't indicated what happens if in parallel clients ask to be served more files than you could mmap fit into the HTTP server processes address space (ie. see #2) So I think this patch stinks :)