Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: Is sendfile all that sexy? (fwd)]]

[Ingo Molnar]

On Thu, 18 Jan 2001, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:

> I'm all for TCP_CORK but it has the disavantage of two syscalls for
> doing the flush of the outgoing queue to the network. And one of those
> two syscalls is spurious. [...]

i believe a network-conscious application should use MSG_MORE - that has
no system-call overhead.

> +     case SIOCPUSH:
> +             lock_sock(sk);
> +             __tcp_push_pending_frames(sk, tp, tcp_current_mss(sk), 1);
> +             release_sock(sk);
> +             break;

i believe it should rather be a new setsockopt TCP_CORK value (or a new
setsockopt constant), not an ioctl. Eg. a value of 2 to TCP_CORK could
mean 'force packet boundary now if possible, and dont touch TCP_CORK
state'.

        Ingo

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/