From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue May 27 11:38:58 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38DC037B401
	for <arch@freebsd.org>; Tue, 27 May 2003 11:38:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from park.rambler.ru (park.rambler.ru [81.19.64.101])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18FDF43FAF
	for <arch@freebsd.org>; Tue, 27 May 2003 11:38:57 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from is@rambler-co.ru)
Received: from is.park.rambler.ru (is.park.rambler.ru [81.19.64.102])
	by park.rambler.ru (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h4RIctmF023454;
	Tue, 27 May 2003 22:38:55 +0400 (MSD)
Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 22:38:55 +0400 (MSD)
From: Igor Sysoev <is@rambler-co.ru>
X-Sender: is@is
To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com>
In-Reply-To: <3ED39260.27639328@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0305272237140.49544-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
cc: arch@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: sendfile(2) SF_NOPUSH flag proposal
X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture
	<freebsd-arch.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 18:38:58 -0000

On Tue, 27 May 2003, Terry Lambert wrote:

> Why?  Why not just fix the broken sendfile(2) implementation,
> instead?

Well, how ?

> So there's no barrier to you fixing this by either breaking
> up tcp_output() into two functions, or lazy-calling tcp_output(),
> instead of aggreesively calling it between headers and file
> data and file data and trailers in sendfile(2).  Right?  No
> API change necessary?

Did you look inside sendfile() implementation ?
There'are no tcp_output() calls at all.  Header and trailer are written by
writev() and file pages are written by so->so_proto->pr_usrreqs->pru_send().


Igor Sysoev
http://sysoev.ru/en/