netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Early SPECWeb99 results on 2.5.33 with TSO on e1000

To: gh@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Early SPECWeb99 results on 2.5.33 with TSO on e1000
From: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 11:58:04 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: Martin.Bligh@xxxxxxxxxx, hadi@xxxxxxxxxx, tcw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, niv@xxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <E17nOIa-0003Xy-00@w-gerrit2>
References: <20020906.113448.07697441.davem@redhat.com> <E17nOIa-0003Xy-00@w-gerrit2>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
   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.


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