Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 01:02:35 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net> To: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org> Cc: Peter Jeremy <peter.jeremy@alcatel.com.au>, freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: mmap(2) vs read(2)/write(2) Message-ID: <20010411010235.N15938@fw.wintelcom.net> In-Reply-To: <xzpr8yzamyv.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no>; from des@ofug.org on Wed, Apr 11, 2001 at 09:56:40AM %2B0200 References: <20010411095233.P66243@gsmx07.alcatel.com.au> <20010410171522.H15938@fw.wintelcom.net> <xzpr8yzamyv.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org> [010411 00:56] wrote: > Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net> 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010411010235.N15938>