Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 11:09:54 -0700 From: Xin LI <delphij@delphij.net> To: Kevin Day <toasty@dragondata.com> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: sfbufs on amd64? Message-ID: <48DD2572.4000001@delphij.net> In-Reply-To: <81F28D26-4E90-4C6F-94DB-FB834F3B78F9@dragondata.com> References: <81F28D26-4E90-4C6F-94DB-FB834F3B78F9@dragondata.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Kevin Day wrote: > > When using sendfile() on an amd64 box, are sfbufs still used/needed? The > reason I ask: > > # netstat -m > 0/0/0 sfbufs in use (current/peak/max) > 0 requests for sfbufs denied > 0 requests for sfbufs delayed > 1334122 requests for I/O initiated by sendfile > > kern.ipc.nsfbufsused: 0 > kern.ipc.nsfbufspeak: 0 > kern.ipc.nsfbufs: 0 > > > Does sendfile work differently on amd64 so that sfbufs aren't needed, or > is this a statistics issue? > > This is in 7.0-RELEASE, btw. - From FreeBSD 7.0-RELEASE, the system gets the ability to make use of amd64-specific technique that eliminates the need of allocating sfbufs and avoids the copying. That's say, sendfile would work without needing to separately allocating sfbufs and this would be much faster than the old approach. Cheers, - -- Xin LI <delphij@delphij.net> http://www.delphij.net/ FreeBSD - The Power to Serve! -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAkjdJXIACgkQi+vbBBjt66AatQCdG2KI6HcG+S5k2n56ZwevjbM1 kY0AoKF0fGHZmOrWuwQvsS1mU8/QTzyS =7oMA -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?48DD2572.4000001>