From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 05:10:14 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 05:09:54 -0500 Received: from vp175097.reshsg.uci.edu ([128.195.175.97]:23050 "EHLO moisil.dev.hydraweb.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 05:09:52 -0500 Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 02:09:41 -0800 Message-Id: <200101271009.f0RA9fb04363@moisil.dev.hydraweb.com> From: Ion Badulescu To: Andrew Morton Cc: lkml , "netdev@oss.sgi.com" , Aaron Lehmann Subject: Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (nothing to do with ECN) In-Reply-To: <3A728475.34CF841@uow.edu.au> User-Agent: tin/1.4.4-20000803 ("Vet for the Insane") (UNIX) (Linux/2.2.18 (i586)) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 27 Jan 2001 19:19:01 +1100, Andrew Morton wrote: > The figures I quoted for the no-hw-checksum case were still > using scatter/gather. That can be turned off as well and > it makes it a tiny bit quicker. Hmm. Are you sure the differences are not just noise? Unless you modified the zerocopy patch yourself, it won't use SG without checksums... In fact it would be interesting to revert that policy and see how much SG alone helps. Probably not much, since the CPU checksumming is close to onecopy. Ion -- It is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/