From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Sep 26 18:10:07 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB73D106568C for ; Fri, 26 Sep 2008 18:10:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from delphij@delphij.net) Received: from tarsier.delphij.net (delphij-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:2c9::2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 627EE8FC1C for ; Fri, 26 Sep 2008 18:10:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from delphij@delphij.net) Received: from tarsier.geekcn.org (tarsier.geekcn.org [211.166.10.233]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by tarsier.delphij.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 89E0728449 for ; Sat, 27 Sep 2008 02:10:06 +0800 (CST) Received: from localhost (tarsier.geekcn.org [211.166.10.233]) by tarsier.geekcn.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EBB2F67B70; Sat, 27 Sep 2008 02:10:06 +0800 (CST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at geekcn.org Received: from tarsier.geekcn.org ([211.166.10.233]) by localhost (mail.geekcn.org [211.166.10.233]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZAZndxgPoFkj; Sat, 27 Sep 2008 02:10:01 +0800 (CST) Received: from charlie.delphij.net (c-76-103-40-85.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [76.103.40.85]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by tarsier.geekcn.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D93CFEDCF78; Sat, 27 Sep 2008 02:09:58 +0800 (CST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=default; d=delphij.net; c=nofws; q=dns; h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:organization:user-agent: mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to: x-enigmail-version:openpgp:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=HhF1P/Q5F7/8N3yLsD5tyREyKUqDFp+OFGeJkCb3s+6LhGbLPB+JwaoRFBLXc+6oU PQbwCXszOU/Gjnwg9/F2w== Message-ID: <48DD2572.4000001@delphij.net> Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 11:09:54 -0700 From: Xin LI Organization: The FreeBSD Project User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (X11/20080725) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kevin Day References: <81F28D26-4E90-4C6F-94DB-FB834F3B78F9@dragondata.com> In-Reply-To: <81F28D26-4E90-4C6F-94DB-FB834F3B78F9@dragondata.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 OpenPGP: id=18EDEBA0; url=http://www.delphij.net/delphij.asc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: sfbufs on amd64? X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: d@delphij.net List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 18:10:07 -0000 -----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 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-----