From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed May 28 22:12:40 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 637C837B401
	for <arch@freebsd.org>; Wed, 28 May 2003 22:12:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from park.rambler.ru (park.rambler.ru [81.19.64.101])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E097043F85
	for <arch@freebsd.org>; Wed, 28 May 2003 22:12:38 -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 h4T5CamF059940;
	Thu, 29 May 2003 09:12:36 +0400 (MSD)
Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 09:12:36 +0400 (MSD)
From: Igor Sysoev <is@rambler-co.ru>
X-Sender: is@is
To: Bill Fenner <fenner@research.att.com>
In-Reply-To: <200305282010.h4SKAZh07220@windsor.research.att.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0305290912190.51943-100000@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: Thu, 29 May 2003 05:12:40 -0000

On Wed, 28 May 2003, Bill Fenner wrote:

> >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?

What exactly ? The use of TF_NOPUSH or a coalescence ? If the former then
it's a simple hackish solutiun without a modifyng writev().

> >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.

Yes, of course both flags do this.


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