From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jul 29 21:10:58 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: current@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2AA6C54D; Tue, 29 Jul 2014 21:10:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-n.franken.de (drew.ipv6.franken.de [IPv6:2001:638:a02:a001:20e:cff:fe4a:feaa]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mail-n.franken.de", Issuer "Thawte DV SSL CA" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E1A5925E6; Tue, 29 Jul 2014 21:10:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.200] (p548188AB.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.129.136.171]) (Authenticated sender: macmic) by mail-n.franken.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 549F31C0E96AC; Tue, 29 Jul 2014 23:10:54 +0200 (CEST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) Subject: Re: [CFT/CFR] machine independent sf_bufs From: Michael Tuexen In-Reply-To: <20140729180043.GG89995@glebius.int.ru> Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 23:10:53 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: References: <20140719062725.GB85917@FreeBSD.org> <20140729104156.GD89995@FreeBSD.org> <20140729180043.GG89995@glebius.int.ru> To: Gleb Smirnoff X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Cc: kib@FreeBSD.org, current@FreeBSD.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 21:10:58 -0000 On 29 Jul 2014, at 20:00, Gleb Smirnoff wrote: > On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 07:29:43PM +0200, Michael Tuexen wrote: > M> > Sorry for top quoting, this is to annoy you :) I got zero > M> > replies on the below email during a week. I'd really appreciate > M> > testing on different platforms. Any takers? > M> OK, it works on an Raspberry pi running r269231 with your patch. > M> The only suspicious thing I observed was that the number of > M> 'requests for I/O initiated by sendfile' in netstat -m doesn't > M> always increase. I would expect that. However, I'm not sure if > M> this is ARM related (I would not think so) or is related to your > M> patch at all. > > Thanks a lot, Michael! > > The observation on number of I/Os is absolutely okay, since VM > cashes pages. Ahh, OK, makes sense. I was transmitting the same file several times... Best regards Michael > > > -- > Totus tuus, Glebius. >