Re: Minutes from 10/1 LSE Call

[Jeff Garzik]

Larry McVoy wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 04:29:16PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > If you have a loop like:
> >
> > 	char *buf;
> >
> > 	for (lots) {
> > 		read(fd, buf, size);
> > 	}
> >
> > the optimum value of `size' is small: as little as 8k.  Once `size' gets
> > close to half the size of the L1 cache you end up pushing the memory at
> > `buf' out of CPU cache all the time.
>
>
> I've seen this too, not that Andrew needs me to back him up, but in many 
> cases even 4k is big enough.  Linux has a very thin system call layer so
> it is OK, good even, to use reasonable buffer sizes.


Slight tangent, FWIW...   Back when I was working on my "race-free 
userland" project, I noticed that the fastest cp(1) implementation was 
GNU's:  read/write from a single, statically allocated, page-aligned 4K 
buffer.  I experimented with various buffer sizes, mmap-based copies, 
and even with sendfile(2) where both arguments were files. 
read(2)/write(2) of a single 4K buffer was always the fastest.

	Jeff



-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/