On Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 04:45:43PM +1100, Andrew Morton wrote:
> 2.4.1-pre10-vanilla, using read()/write(): 34.5% CPU
> 2.4.1-pre10+zercopy, using read()/write(): 38.1% CPU
Am I right to be bothered by this?
The majority of Unix network traffic is handled with read()/write().
Why would zerocopy slow that down?
If zerocopy is simply unoptimized, that's fine for now. But if the
problem is inherent in the implementation or design, that might be a
problem. Any patch which incurs a signifigant slowdown on traditional
networking should be contraversial.
Aaron Lehmann
please ignore me if I don't know what I'm talking about.
-
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/
