From: Wolfgang Draxinger <wdraxinger.maillist@draxit.de>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: mmap vs. read/write performance/overhead revisited
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 21:02:34 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5577384A.6000709@draxit.de> (raw)
Hi!
So how is it _today_ with the current 4.x kernels when it comes to mmap
vs read(2)/write(2)?
Either it's my Google-foo lacking or the most recent comment on the
topic really dates back 15 years, but this is the only substancial
background information relevant for Linux I did find:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=95496636207616&w=2
... that was 15 years ago, the beaver was not even conceived, not to
speak going into detox, or even its predecessor. So I'm wondering, how
relevant are the deliberations of back then today?
I've got a very practical application for which this deliberation is
relevant, but I don't want to spam the list with a technical lecture on
ultra high speed OCT imaging.
Cheers,
Wolfgang
reply other threads:[~2015-06-09 19:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: [no followups] expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=5577384A.6000709@draxit.de \
--to=wdraxinger.maillist@draxit.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox