From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 13:43:22 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 13:43:12 -0400 Received: from pizda.ninka.net ([216.101.162.242]:8836 "EHLO pizda.ninka.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 13:42:58 -0400 Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 10:43:23 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <20011018.104323.26964897.davem@redhat.com> To: frankeh@watson.ibm.com Cc: lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Patch and Performance of larger pipes From: "David S. Miller" In-Reply-To: <20011018113436.A9459@watson.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <20011018113436.A9459@watson.ibm.com> X-Mailer: Mew version 2.0 on Emacs 21.0 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Have you looked at all at the zerocopy pipe patches? How do they affect the results, and by itself does it do better than any of the schemes you propose? Franks a lot, David S. Miller davem@redhat.com