[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4AC640CD.2030204@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2009 20:05:01 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>
CC: Volker Lendecke <Volker.Lendecke@...Net.DE>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, Volker Lendecke <vl@...ba.org>
Subject: Re: Splice on blocking TCP sockets again..
Jason Gunthorpe a écrit :
>
> I'd suggest a construct like the following as a compatability
> solution:
>
> struct pollfd pfd = {.fd = tcpfd, events = POLLIN | POLLRDHUP};
> while (..) {
> rc = splice(tcpfd,0,pfd[1],0,count,SPLICE_F_MOVE | SPLICE_F_NONBLOCK);
> if (rc == -1)
> //...
> if (rc == 0) {
> if (pfd.revents & POLLRDHUP)
> // oops, EOF on TCP
>
> /* Might be an old kernel that nonblocks on TCP, have to check
> if this is EOF or do blocking. */
> rc = poll(&pfd,1,-1);
> if (rc == -1)
> //...
> }
>
> rc = splice(pfd[0],0,ofd,0,..., SPLICE_F_MOVE)
> }
>
> Which should add no overhead in the new splice blocks case, and falls
> back gracefully on older kernels..
>
Agreed, thanks for the tip.
Indeed, new kernel will permit a loop with only splice() syscalls, while on an old
kernel, some poll() syscalls might be needed if tcp socket is empty.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists