[lkml]   [2001]   [Jan]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [Fwd: [Fwd: Is sendfile all that sexy? (fwd)]]

    On Thu, 18 Jan 2001, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:

    > I'm all for TCP_CORK but it has the disavantage of two syscalls for
    > doing the flush of the outgoing queue to the network. And one of those
    > two syscalls is spurious. [...]

    i believe a network-conscious application should use MSG_MORE - that has
    no system-call overhead.

    > + case SIOCPUSH:
    > + lock_sock(sk);
    > + __tcp_push_pending_frames(sk, tp, tcp_current_mss(sk), 1);
    > + release_sock(sk);
    > + break;

    i believe it should rather be a new setsockopt TCP_CORK value (or a new
    setsockopt constant), not an ioctl. Eg. a value of 2 to TCP_CORK could
    mean 'force packet boundary now if possible, and dont touch TCP_CORK


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:26    [W:0.031 / U:10.520 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site