| |||||||||||||
It is zero-copyIt is zero-copyPosted Apr 7, 2006 22:46 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954)In reply to: It is zero-copy by axboe Parent article: Two new system calls: splice() and sync_file_range() It sounds funny only because you're using "copy" two different ways in the same sentence. When we talk about copying a file, we're talking about copying from disk to disk. When we say zero-copy, we're talking about copying data from memory to memory. A splice-based file copy does one disk-disk copy, and no memory-memory copy, as contrasted with the traditional file copy that does one disk-disk copy plus two memory-memory copies. Since the naive observer wouldn't even expect there to be memory-memory copies involved in copying files, "zero copy file copy" shouldn't sound odd at all.
(Log in to post comments)
It is zero-copy Posted Apr 8, 2006 11:14 UTC (Sat) by axboe (subscriber, #904) [Link] A splice based copy does no copies. The source data is DMA'ed from hardware to the source file page(s), then those pages are moved to the destination and dirted to so will eventually go out to disk again with another DMA operations.
A normal copy will DMA those pages in, allocate pages in the target file address space, copy that data over, and then it'll be DMA'ed to disk again. So two DMA operations, and one full copy of all the data.
So a splice based copy will be zero memory copies, and two DMA "copies" (the dma operation above may be a series of dma transactions, depending on how large the file is). A normal copy contains the same number of DMA operations, but includes a memory copy.
It is zero-copy Posted Apr 8, 2006 17:31 UTC (Sat) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] So a splice based copy will be zero memory copies, and two DMA "copies" I presume "copies" is in quotes because you agree with me that the DMA operations are not copies in the sense we're talking about. (If they were, a "zero-copy" file read wouldn't be zero-copy, and moving data from kernel file data cache to user space would be two copies (kernel memory to register, register to user memory)). However, the combination of the two DMAs constitutes one disk copy. A disk copy is an instance of replicating data from one place on a disk to another, just as a memory copy is an instance of replicating data from one place in memory to another. And it's worth talking about because it takes time. If you could truly do a zero-copy copy, that would be remarkable. As it stands, "zero-copy copy" is just a trick of words in which you change the definition of copy in the middle of the sentence. A normal copy contains the same number of DMA operations, but includes a memory copy. Actually, the most normal file copy includes two memory copies -- from kernel file data cache of the source file to user space buffer, and from that buffer to the other file's kernel file data cache. With mmap, you can get it down to one, and with direct I/O you can get to zero.
It is zero-copy Posted Apr 8, 2006 18:26 UTC (Sat) by axboe (subscriber, #904) [Link] Copy is in quotes, because it's not the CPU doing the copy. Which is what is interesting, and why zero-copy just means zero CPU copies. That is where you pay the cost, at least in CPU cycles and potentially also in cache. So zero-copy definitely isn't just a play on words. It may sometimes be used in silly marketing ways, but if you are CPU bound it makes all the difference in the world that the CPU doesn't have to touch the data.
And yes, the normal copy is indeed two copies, to and from kernel/user space.
You can continue talking if you want, but don't expect a response from me.
|
|||||||||||||