Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 22:29:59 -0700 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: Igor Sysoev <is@rambler-co.ru> Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: sendfile(2) SF_NOPUSH flag proposal Message-ID: <3ED59AD7.AA0CA6D5@mindspring.com> References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0305282219570.51226-100000@is>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Igor Sysoev wrote: > No, I do want these flags because they resolve the problem of partially > filled packets. I believe that this problem can be solved without a fixing > the sendfile() implementation. By kludging it, you mean. > The portability argument is bogus because sendfile() portability is nonsense. Darwin has sendfile. See the released source code: it matches the FreeBSD semantics, from what I can tell. > The drawback that really annoyed me is that sendfile() blocks on a reading > from a disk while a sending to non-blocking socket. Although I see three > workarounds it's much better to fix this inside sendfile(). There's no workaround for the latency issue, which comes from the fact that a trap handles the request for more pages, and that blocks all callers. Threads has the same problem in libc_r. > Five people ? Bill Fenner, Matt Dillon, Peter Jeremy, Marc Slemko, Terry Lambert, Garance Droshin. > > Other than writing the correct code for you, there's little > > else we can do, and I, at least, have other code I need to > > write, to solve my own problems. > > Well, Terry, write your code and I will write my own. Fine. Just don't ask us to run it. -- Terry
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3ED59AD7.AA0CA6D5>