[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090504145046.GI23223@one.firstfloor.org>
Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 16:50:46 +0200
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Elad Lahav <elahav@...uwaterloo.ca>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, Elad Lahav <elahav@...terloo.ca>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Implementation of the sendgroup() system call
On Mon, May 04, 2009 at 09:44:31AM -0400, Elad Lahav wrote:
> >My guess it's more the copies than the calls?
> It's a factor of both. This is why we also created the sendgroup()
> implementation that uses a tight loop of in-kernel calls to sendmsg()
> as a means for evaluating the cost of mode switches. It is definitely
> not negligible (exact numbers depend on the size of the group and the
> size of the payload, of course).
How much is non negligible in your case?
>
> >It sounds like you want sendfile() for UDP.
> Do you mean by having a per-recipient sendfile() call for the same
> file? Leaving the cost of the system call aside, this solution does
> not work well with the kind of real-time data that we've been working
> with (live streaming, online games). You would have to write the
> payload to the file as it is being generated and call sendfile() after
> each such write.
You can mmap the file.
-Andi
--
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists