In message <20020906.115804.109349169.davem@xxxxxxxxxx>, > : "David S. Miller"
> 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?