Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 18 Jan 2001 20:43:47 +0100 (CET) | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [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 state'.
Ingo
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |