[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:0.123 / U:8.976 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site