From owner-freebsd-arch Wed Apr 11 1: 2:44 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from fw.wintelcom.net (ns1.wintelcom.net [209.1.153.20]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27EF137B424 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 01:02:42 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from bright@fw.wintelcom.net) Received: (from bright@localhost) by fw.wintelcom.net (8.10.0/8.10.0) id f3B82Zd23913; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 01:02:35 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 01:02:35 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein To: Dag-Erling Smorgrav Cc: Peter Jeremy , freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: mmap(2) vs read(2)/write(2) Message-ID: <20010411010235.N15938@fw.wintelcom.net> References: <20010411095233.P66243@gsmx07.alcatel.com.au> <20010410171522.H15938@fw.wintelcom.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from des@ofug.org on Wed, Apr 11, 2001 at 09:56:40AM +0200 X-all-your-base: are belong to us. Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG * Dag-Erling Smorgrav [010411 00:56] wrote: > Alfred Perlstein writes: > > Peter, the stdio would still have to copy the data into the user > > supplied buffer > > Not for fgetln()... Well not only that, the mmap'ing could avoid the initial copy invoved in buffering. Basically, it does avoid the copy, but the vm overhead is something to investigate, it shouldn't just be implemented on a whim. -- -Alfred Perlstein - [bright@wintelcom.net|alfred@freebsd.org] Represent yourself, show up at BABUG http://www.babug.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message