Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Thu, 18 Jan 2001 19:25:36 -0800 (PST) | From | dean gaudet <> | Subject | Re: [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 :)
-dean
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 majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |