From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Wed May 28 22:31:14 2003 Return-Path: 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 AC06537B401 for ; Wed, 28 May 2003 22:31:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stork.mail.pas.earthlink.net (stork.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.188]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2206643FAF for ; Wed, 28 May 2003 22:31:14 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from user-38lc0vo.dialup.mindspring.com ([209.86.3.248] helo=mindspring.com) by stork.mail.pas.earthlink.net with asmtp (SSLv3:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 3.33 #1) id 19LG0M-0004YA-00; Wed, 28 May 2003 22:31:10 -0700 Message-ID: <3ED59AD7.AA0CA6D5@mindspring.com> Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 22:29:59 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Igor Sysoev References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ELNK-Trace: b1a02af9316fbb217a47c185c03b154d40683398e744b8a4213aeeae5ba80b876fdce354690a3ebd667c3043c0873f7e350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 05:31:15 -0000 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