netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Early SPECWeb99 results on 2.5.33 with TSO on e1000

To: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Early SPECWeb99 results on 2.5.33 with TSO on e1000
From: Gerrit Huizenga <gh@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 12:52:15 -0700
Cc: Martin.Bligh@xxxxxxxxxx, hadi@xxxxxxxxxx, tcw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, niv@xxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: Your message of Fri, 06 Sep 2002 11:58:04 PDT. <20020906.115804.109349169.davem@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: Gerrit Huizenga <gh@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
In message <20020906.115804.109349169.davem@xxxxxxxxxx>, > : "David S. Miller" 
writes:
>    From: Gerrit Huizenga <gh@xxxxxxxxxx>
>    Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 11:57:39 -0700
> 
>    Out of curiosity, and primarily for my own edification, what kind
>    of optimization does it do when everything is generated by a java/
>    perl/python/homebrew script and pasted together by something which
>    consults a content manager.  In a few of the cases that I know of,
>    there isn't really any static content to cache...  And why is this
>    something that Apache couldn't/shouldn't be doing?
> 
> The kernel exec's the CGI process from the TUX server and pipes the
> output directly into a networking socket.
>
> Because it is cheaper to create a new fresh user thread from within
> the kernel (ie. we don't have to fork() apache and thus dup it's
> address space), it is faster.

So if apache were using a listen()/clone()/accept()/exec() combo rather than a
full listen()/fork()/exec() model it would see most of the same benefits?
Some additional overhead for the user/kernel syscall path but probably
pretty minor, right?

Or did I miss a piece of data, like the time to call clone() as a function
from in kernel is 2x or 10x more than the same syscall?

gerrit


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>