Re: sendfile(2) SF_NOPUSH flag proposal
From: Bill Fenner (fenner_at_research.att.com)
Date: 05/28/03
- Previous message: Matthew Dillon: "Re: sendfile(2) SF_NOPUSH flag proposal"
- Maybe in reply to: Igor Sysoev: "sendfile(2) SF_NOPUSH flag proposal"
- Next in thread: Igor Sysoev: "Re: sendfile(2) SF_NOPUSH flag proposal"
- Reply: Igor Sysoev: "Re: sendfile(2) SF_NOPUSH flag proposal"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
To: is@rambler-co.ru Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 13:10:34 -0700
>1) use TF_NOPUSH to coalesce the header and the first file part
> or the last file part and the trailer as Matthew Dillon suggested;
Is this really necessary?
>2) use the same TF_NOPUSH to postpone the sending partial packet while
> a reading file page from the disk;
PRUS_MORETOCOME does this too, and is quite a bit less hacky.
>3) and use PRUS_MORETOCOME to avoid partial packet after EAGAIN
> on non-blocking socket.
Yup.
Bill
_______________________________________________
freebsd-arch@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-arch-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
- Previous message: Matthew Dillon: "Re: sendfile(2) SF_NOPUSH flag proposal"
- Maybe in reply to: Igor Sysoev: "sendfile(2) SF_NOPUSH flag proposal"
- Next in thread: Igor Sysoev: "Re: sendfile(2) SF_NOPUSH flag proposal"
- Reply: Igor Sysoev: "Re: sendfile(2) SF_NOPUSH flag proposal"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
|