Messages in this thread | | | From | Gerrit Huizenga <> | Subject | Re: Early SPECWeb99 results on 2.5.33 with TSO on e1000 | Date | Fri, 06 Sep 2002 12:52:15 -0700 |
| |
In message <20020906.115804.109349169.davem@redhat.com>, > : "David S. Miller" writes: > From: Gerrit Huizenga <gh@us.ibm.com> > Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 11:57:39 -0700 > > Out of curiosity, and primarily for my own edification, what kind > of optimization does it do when everything is generated by a java/ > perl/python/homebrew script and pasted together by something which > consults a content manager. In a few of the cases that I know of, > there isn't really any static content to cache... And why is this > something that Apache couldn't/shouldn't be doing? > > The kernel exec's the CGI process from the TUX server and pipes the > output directly into a networking socket. > > Because it is cheaper to create a new fresh user thread from within > the kernel (ie. we don't have to fork() apache and thus dup it's > address space), it is faster.
So if apache were using a listen()/clone()/accept()/exec() combo rather than a full listen()/fork()/exec() model it would see most of the same benefits? Some additional overhead for the user/kernel syscall path but probably pretty minor, right?
Or did I miss a piece of data, like the time to call clone() as a function from in kernel is 2x or 10x more than the same syscall?
gerrit - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |