Re: Reqst for Information: Loopback device programming
From: Kasper Dupont (kasperd_at_daimi.au.dk)
Date: 04/21/05
- Previous message: phil-news-nospam_at_ipal.net: "Re: Reqst for Information: Loopback device programming"
- In reply to: Peter T. Breuer: "Re: Reqst for Information: Loopback device programming"
- Next in thread: Peter T. Breuer: "Re: Reqst for Information: Loopback device programming"
- Reply: Peter T. Breuer: "Re: Reqst for Information: Loopback device programming"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 07:48:57 +0200
"Peter T. Breuer" wrote:
>
> I don't particularly know why the actual network data
> transmission is done in kernel space rather than userspace.
Performance would be one possible reason. Unfortunately
it looks like all the work is done in the context of a
user process. So even though it happens in kernel mode,
you don't get the performance benefit of lazy mm switching.
Would be interesting to see if performance improvement
could be achieved by daemonizing the process. I guess it
is going to crash on return if you do that, so if it
really makes a significant difference it should probably
be done right by starting a new kernel thread.
>
> In this case "don't use a congested network and keep blocksize at 1K to
> avoid tcp fragmentation" would work.
Do you mean IP fragmentation or TCP segmentation?
-- Kasper Dupont
- Previous message: phil-news-nospam_at_ipal.net: "Re: Reqst for Information: Loopback device programming"
- In reply to: Peter T. Breuer: "Re: Reqst for Information: Loopback device programming"
- Next in thread: Peter T. Breuer: "Re: Reqst for Information: Loopback device programming"
- Reply: Peter T. Breuer: "Re: Reqst for Information: Loopback device programming"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|