On Thu, Apr 20, 2006 at 05:44:38PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:

From: Olof Johansson <redacted>
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 18:33:43 -0500

quoted

On Thu, Apr 20, 2006 at 03:14:15PM -0700, Andrew Grover wrote:

quoted

In
addition, there may be workloads (file serving? backup?) where we
could do a skb->page-in-page-cache copy and avoid cache pollution?

Yes, NFS is probably a prime example of where most of the data isn't
looked at; just written to disk. I'm not sure how well-optimized the
receive path is there already w.r.t. avoiding copying though. I don't
remember seeing memcpy and friends being high on the profile when I
looked at SPECsfs last.

If that makes sense then the cpu copy can be made to use non-temporal
stores.

I'm not sure that would buy anything. I didn't mean caching was
necessarily bad, just that lack of it might not hurt as much under that
specific type of workload.

NFS has to look at RPC/NFS headers anyway, so it will benefit from the
cache being warm.


-Olof