Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 17:29:15 +0000 (GMT) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> To: des@flood.ping.uio.no (Dag-Erling Smorgrav) Cc: bright@wintelcom.net (Alfred Perlstein), arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: kblob discussion. Message-ID: <200006201729.KAA19533@usr01.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <xzpk8fktu2x.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> from "Dag-Erling Smorgrav" at Jun 20, 2000 02:28:38 PM
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > oops, you can find the preliminary kblob diffs over here: > > > > http://people.freebsd.org/~alfred/kblob/kblob-final.diff > > > > It's a new syscall, less overhead than sendfile and useful for > > serving small chunks of data very quickly. > > Do kblobs do anything that can't be easily done with sendfile() by > mmapping suitably large chunks of /dev/null? Don't dirty chunks of /dev/zero (I think you meant /dev/zero?) get written to swap? This would seem to be not very useful overhead. Alfred already pointed out the mlock/sendfile approach, and why it was not recisely the same as what he intended by "kblob". I think this interface is, to a large extent, an unfortunate victim of its current name. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200006201729.KAA19533>