[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)]]
    huh -- i think with this apache could solve the problem documented in
    heidemann's paper while also leaving nagle on... which would solve the CGI
    dribbler vs. bulk problem i just posted about.

    at the end of a request apache would check first if it can get another
    request without blocking; if it would block then it issues a SIOCPUSH and
    drops into poll() waiting for a new request.

    this means the final packet of a response isn't ever delayed (which is the
    motivation for turning off nagle); and a multi-request pipeline has
    maximal packets... and a dribbling CGI won't cause as many tiny packets.

    this may in fact also eliminate the need for CORK, unless anyone can
    really think of an app that wouldn't even want small packets on the wire
    when the server hasn't sent anything for a while.

    i like this one :)


    On Thu, 18 Jan 2001, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:

    > diff -urN -X /home/andrea/bin/dontdiff 2.4.1pre8/net/ipv4/tcp.c SIOCPUSH/net/ipv4/tcp.c
    > --- 2.4.1pre8/net/ipv4/tcp.c Wed Jan 17 04:02:38 2001
    > +++ SIOCPUSH/net/ipv4/tcp.c Thu Jan 18 19:10:14 2001
    > @@ -671,6 +671,11 @@
    > else
    > answ = tp->write_seq - tp->snd_una;
    > break;
    > + case SIOCPUSH:
    > + lock_sock(sk);
    > + __tcp_push_pending_frames(sk, tp, tcp_current_mss(sk), 1);
    > + release_sock(sk);
    > + break;
    > default:
    > return(-ENOIOCTLCMD);
    > };

    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 13:28    [W:0.022 / U:13.780 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site