Linux-kernel mailing list archive 1999-25,: Re: async sendfile (was: kHTTPd: Good or Bad)

# Re: async sendfile (was: kHTTPd: Good or Bad)

Bjorn Wesen (bjorn@sparta.lu.se)
Sun, 20 Jun 1999 22:41:33 +0200 (MET DST)

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Dan Hollis: "Re: Why khttpd is a bad idea (was a pointless argument about"
- Previous message: Chris Adams: "Re: Massive e2fs corruption with 2.2.9/10?"

Hello,

On Sun, 20 Jun 1999, Zach Brown wrote:
> it only fixes/extends the kernel's sigio/siginfo functionality, these
> patches are needed anyway; they'll probably go in 2.3/2.4.

could you (or someone else) elaborate on the issues with sendfile and
asynch sendfile ? I'm curious..

The current sendfile() is blocking right, so you basically need a fork()
for serving a file ? And that an asynch sendfile would start the
operation, return immediately, kernel fiddles with pages and sockets, and
delivers a signal when done ?

And this is faster than using non-blocking separate write()'s from mmap'ed
files in a select() loop (single thread model).

If so, what does the sigio patches you mention do ?

/Bjorn

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

- Next message: Dan Hollis: "Re: Why khttpd is a bad idea (was a pointless argument about"
- Previous message: Chris Adams: "Re: Massive e2fs corruption with 2.2.9/10?"