httpd-cvs mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From dgau...@hyperreal.org
Subject cvs commit: apache-2.0/docs page_io
Date Fri, 20 Feb 1998 08:25:36 GMT
dgaudet     98/02/20 00:25:35

  Added:       docs     page_io
  Log:
  expand on what I mean by page-based i/o
  
  Revision  Changes    Path
  1.1                  apache-2.0/docs/page_io
  
  Index: page_io
  ===================================================================
  
  From dgaudet@arctic.org Fri Feb 20 00:36:52 1998
  Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 00:35:37 -0800 (PST)
  From: Dean Gaudet <dgaudet@arctic.org>
  To: new-httpd@apache.org
  Subject: page-based i/o
  X-Comment: Visit http://www.arctic.org/~dgaudet/legal for information regarding copyright
and disclaimer.
  Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org
  
  Ed asked me for more details on what I mean when I talk about "paged based
  zero copy i/o". 
  
  While writing mod_mmap_static I was thinking about the primitives that the
  core requires of the filesystem.  What exactly is it that ties us into the
  filesystem?  and how would we abstract it?  The metadata (last modified
  time, file length) is actually pretty easy to abstract.  It's also easy to
  define an "index" function so that MultiViews and such can be implemented. 
  And with layered I/O we can hide the actual details of how you access
  these "virtual" files. 
  
  But therein lies an inefficiency.  If we had only bread() for reading
  virtual files, then we would enforce at least one copy of the data. 
  bread() supplies the place that the caller wants to see the data, and so
  the bread() code has to copy it.  But there's very little reason that
  bread() callers have to supply the buffer... bread() itself could supply
  the buffer.  Call this new interface page_read().  It looks something like
  this:
  
      typedef struct {
  	const void *data;
  	size_t data_len; /* amt of data on page which is valid */
  	... other stuff necessary for managing the page pool ...
      } a_page_head;
  
      /* returns NULL if an error or EOF occurs, on EOF errno will be
       * set to 0
       */
      a_page_head *page_read(BUFF *fb);
  
      /* queues entire page for writing, returns 0 on success, -1 on
       * error
       */
      int page_write(BUFF *fb, a_page_head *);
  
  It's very important that a_page_head structures point to the data page
  rather than be part of the data page.  This way we can build a_page_head
  structures which refer to parts of mmap()d memory.
  
  This stuff is a little more tricky to do, but is a big win for performance.
  With this integrated into our layered I/O it means that we can have
  zero-copy performance while still getting the advantages of layering.
  
  But note I'm glossing over a bunch of details... like the fact that we
  have to decide if a_page_heads are shared data, and hence need reference
  counting (i.e. I said "queues for writing" up there, which means some
  bit of the a_page_head data has to be kept until its actually written).
  Similarly for the page data.
  
  There are other tricks in this area that we can take advantage of --
  like interprocess communication on architectures that do page flipping.
  On these boxes if you write() something that's page-aligned and page-sized
  to a pipe or unix socket, and the other end read()s into a page-aligned
  page-sized buffer then the kernel can get away without copying any data.
  It just marks the two pages as shared copy-on-write, and only when
  they're written to will the copy be made.  So to make this work, your
  writer uses a ring of 2+ page-aligned/sized buffers so that it's not
  writing on something the reader is still reading.
  
  Dean
  
  
  
  

Mime
View raw message