Re: [HACKERS] O_DIRECT, or madvise and/or posix_fadvise

2007-01-12 Thread Martijn van Oosterhout
On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 02:35:13PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I caught this thread about O_DIRECT on kerneltrap.org: http://kerneltrap.org/node/7563 It sounds like there is much to be gained here in terms of reducing the number of user/kernel space copies in the operating system. I

Re: [HACKERS] O_DIRECT, or madvise and/or posix_fadvise

2007-01-12 Thread markwkm
On 1/12/07, Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org wrote: On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 02:35:13PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I caught this thread about O_DIRECT on kerneltrap.org: http://kerneltrap.org/node/7563 It sounds like there is much to be gained here in terms of reducing the

[HACKERS] O_DIRECT, or madvise and/or posix_fadvise

2007-01-11 Thread markwkm
I caught this thread about O_DIRECT on kerneltrap.org: http://kerneltrap.org/node/7563 It sounds like there is much to be gained here in terms of reducing the number of user/kernel space copies in the operating system. I got the impression that posix_fadvise in the Linux kernel isn't as good