On Thu, Apr 20, 2006 at 05:44:38PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote: > From: Olof Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 18:33:43 -0500 > > > On Thu, Apr 20, 2006 at 03:14:15PM -0700, Andrew Grover wrote: > > > In > > > addition, there may be workloads (file serving? backup?) where we > > > could do a skb->page-in-page-cache copy and avoid cache pollution? > > > > Yes, NFS is probably a prime example of where most of the data isn't > > looked at; just written to disk. I'm not sure how well-optimized the > > receive path is there already w.r.t. avoiding copying though. I don't > > remember seeing memcpy and friends being high on the profile when I > > looked at SPECsfs last. > > If that makes sense then the cpu copy can be made to use non-temporal > stores.
I'm not sure that would buy anything. I didn't mean caching was necessarily bad, just that lack of it might not hurt as much under that specific type of workload. NFS has to look at RPC/NFS headers anyway, so it will benefit from the cache being warm. -Olof - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
