Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 14:49:09 +0930 (CST) From: "Daniel O'Connor" <doconnor@gsoft.com.au> To: Marc Slemko <marcs@znep.com> Cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, Nate Williams <nate@yogotech.com>, Alfred Perlstein <alfred@FreeBSD.ORG>, "Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@newsguy.com> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern uipc_socket.c uipc_socket2.c src/sy Message-ID: <XFMail.000616144909.doconnor@gsoft.com.au> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.21.0006152204370.14352-100000@redfish>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 16-Jun-00 Marc Slemko wrote: > On Fri, 16 Jun 2000, Daniel O'Connor wrote: > > Well, my naivity abounds, but I would have thought it was because you do an > > accept() which returns and then immediatly you go back to waiting on > > select(). > > Why should that be expensive? Because you go into and out of the kernel twice? If you know a header is in the buffer already you can do accept() then read().. > I just don't see what is that expensive about having to do an > accept() then a select()-like call. In any case, if you are looking > just for code that benchmarks well on simple static content, then the > only answer is to stick the server (well, or a caching mini-server that > only handles simple requests and punts anything it doesn't grok down to > userland) in the kernel. Then you can come pretty darn close to > saturating the bus (well, on other OSes; assuming FreeBSD has no other > bottlenecks) before you run out of CPU. That would be a nice goal but I think the socket option is a nice start... --- Daniel O'Connor software and network engineer for Genesis Software - http://www.gsoft.com.au "The nice thing about standards is that there are so many of them to choose from." -- Andrew Tanenbaum To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?XFMail.000616144909.doconnor>