On Fri, Mar 31 2006, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Linus Torvalds <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > - The pipe is the buffer #2: it's what allows you to do _other_ things
> > with splice that are simply impossible to do with sendfile. Notably,
> > splice allows very naturally the "readv/writev" scatter-gather
> > behaviour of _mixing_ streams. If you're a web-server, with splice you
> > can do
> >
> > write(pipefd, header, header_len);
> > splice(file, pipefd, file_len);
> > splice(pipefd, socket, total_len);
> >
> > (this is all conceptual pseudo-code, of course), and this very
> > naturally has none of the issues that sendfile() has with plugging etc.
> > There's never any "send header separately and do extra work to make
> > sure it is in the same packet as the start of the data".
>
> with pipe-based buffering this approach has still the very same problems
> that sendfile() has with packet boundaries, because it's not enough to
> have "large enough" buffering (like a pipe has), the pipe also has to be
> drained, and the networking layer has to know the precise boundary of
> data.
>
> the right solution to the packet boundary problem is to pass in a proper
> "does userspace expect more data right now" flag, or to let userspace
> 'flush' the socket independently - which is independent of the
> pipe-in-slice issue. This solution already exists: the MSG_MORE flag.
We can add a SPLICE_F_MORE flag for this, right now splice doesn't set
the MSG_MORE flag for the end of the pipe.
--
Jens Axboe
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]