Linux-kernel mailing list archive 1999-51,: Re: Bloat? (khttpd)

# Re: Bloat? (khttpd)

Andi Kleen (ak@muc.de)
24 Dec 1999 12:13:12 +0100

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Andreas Scherbaum: "Re: Do Routing-policies have effect on local-originated packets?"
- Previous message: Andi Kleen: "Re: Idle loop in driver - attempt 2"

ltd@interlink.com.au (Lincoln Dale) writes:

> At 19:33 23/12/99 -0500, Mark Hahn wrote:
> >so far, we have no reason to believe that khttpd performs better than,
> >say, phhttbd, even on silly static-only benchmarks. and even if it did,
> >the sensible conclusion would be that there's something wrong with Linux,
> >not that webserving should be in the kernel!
>
> actually, khttpd does get around one limitation currently inherent inside
> linux --
> and that is that there is no mechanism for zero-copy.

No it does not. Did you ever look at the code?
Also the zero copy could be put into sendfile(), or into the TCP
stack using kiovecs directly from mmaped' data in user space to device
driver (for the benchmark situation of having only a small set of
static data - about the only situation khttpd is useful for - it is
no problem to pre mmap all the data)

Neither sendfile nor khttpd support zero copy currently, and implementing
it in khttpd would be about the same work as implementing an async sendfile
and doing it more generically.

-Andi

    --
    This is like TV. I don't like TV.

    -
    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: Andreas Scherbaum: "Re: Do Routing-policies have effect on local-originated packets?"
- Previous message: Andi Kleen: "Re: Idle loop in driver - attempt 2"