Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2014 13:06:16 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org> To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> Subject: Re: script(2) [was: [CFT/review] new sendfile(2)] Message-ID: <5404D1B8.9010006@mu.org> In-Reply-To: <4204.1409549879@critter.freebsd.dk> References: <20140529102054.GX50679@FreeBSD.org> <20140729232404.GF43962@funkthat.com> <20140831165022.GE7693@FreeBSD.org> <540382E2.3040004@freebsd.org> <2770.1409522711@critter.freebsd.dk> <5403B13C.60008@freebsd.org> <4204.1409549879@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 8/31/14 10:37 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > -------- > In message <5403B13C.60008@freebsd.org>, Alfred Perlstein writes: > >> Lua at the syscall level makes sense. :) > I doubt it. > > We're looking at high performance stuff and we don't want a silly > parser and string processing involved. > Would it really matter? Lua is bytecode, sure it's "slow" but if the API exported to it has hooks for things like "read mbufs from socket" as opposed to "copyout data" then you can do zero copy without context switches. In addition you get a language that people know as opposed to YADSL (yet another domain specific language). http://duktape.org/ :) -Alfred
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5404D1B8.9010006>