From: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>
To: dean gaudet <dean-list-linux-kernel@arctic.org>
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Andrew Morton <andrewm@uow.edu.au>,
kumon@flab.fujitsu.co.jp, Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>,
Alexander Viro <viro@math.psu.edu>,
"Jeff V. Merkey" <jmerkey@timpanogas.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@conectiva.com.br>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Olaf Kirch <okir@monad.swb.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by removal of lock_kernel()?(Was:
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 07:29:51 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20001030072950.A31668@gruyere.muc.suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <E13pYis-0005Q0-00@the-village.bc.nu> <Pine.LNX.4.21.0010291135570.11954-100000@twinlark.arctic.org>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0010291135570.11954-100000@twinlark.arctic.org>; from dean-list-linux-kernel@arctic.org on Sun, Oct 29, 2000 at 11:45:49AM -0800
On Sun, Oct 29, 2000 at 11:45:49AM -0800, dean gaudet wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Oct 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > > The big question is: why is Apache using file locking so
> > > much? Is this normal behaviour for Apache?
> >
> > Apache uses file locking to serialize accept on hosts where accept either has
> > bad thundering heard problems or was simply broken with multiple acceptors
>
> if apache 1.3 is compiled with -DSINGLE_LISTEN_UNSERIALIZED_ACCEPT it'll
> avoid the fcntl() serialisation when there is only one listening port.
> (it still uses it for multiple listeners... you can read all about my
> logic for that at <http://www.apache.org/docs/misc/perf-tuning.html>.)
>
> is it appropriate for this to be defined for newer linux kernels? i
> haven't kept track, sorry. tell me what versions to conditionalize it on.
It should not be needed anymore for 2.4, because the accept() wakeup has been
fixed.
-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2000-10-30 6:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <200010261405.XAA19135@asami.proc.flab.fujitsu.co.jp>
[not found] ` <200010250736.QAA12373@asami.proc.flab.fujitsu.co.jp>
[not found] ` <Pine.LNX.4.21.0010251242050.943-100000@duckman.distro.conectiva>
[not found] ` <200010260138.KAA17028@asami.proc.flab.fujitsu.co.jp>
2000-10-27 6:24 ` Negative scalability by removal of lock_kernel()? (Was: Strange performance behavior of 2.4.0-test9) kumon
2000-10-27 6:32 ` Negative scalability by removal of lock_kernel()?(Was: " Jeff V. Merkey
2000-10-27 7:13 ` Alexander Viro
2000-10-27 7:46 ` Andi Kleen
2000-10-27 10:23 ` Andrew Morton
2000-10-27 10:25 ` Andi Kleen
2000-10-27 12:57 ` [PATCH] " kumon
2000-10-28 15:46 ` Andrew Morton
2000-10-28 15:58 ` Andi Kleen
2000-10-28 16:05 ` Jeff Garzik
2000-10-28 16:20 ` [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by removal of lock_kernel()?(Was: Alan Cox
2000-10-29 19:45 ` dean gaudet
2000-10-30 6:29 ` Andi Kleen [this message]
2000-10-30 15:28 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2000-10-30 16:36 ` Rik van Riel
2000-10-30 18:02 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2000-10-28 16:46 ` [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by removal of lock_kernel()?(Was: Strange performance behavior of 2.4.0-test9) Andrew Morton
2000-10-30 9:27 ` kumon
2000-10-30 15:00 ` Andrew Morton
2000-10-30 23:24 ` dean gaudet
2000-11-04 5:08 ` [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by removal of lock_kernel()?(Was:Strange " Andrew Morton
2000-11-04 6:23 ` Linus Torvalds
2000-11-04 10:54 ` [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by removal of Alan Cox
2000-11-04 17:22 ` Linus Torvalds
2000-11-05 16:22 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2000-11-05 20:21 ` dean gaudet
2000-11-05 22:43 ` Alan Cox
2000-11-04 20:03 ` [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by removal of lock_kernel()?(Was:Strange performance behavior of 2.4.0-test9) dean gaudet
2000-11-04 20:42 ` [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by removal of lock_kernel()?(Was:Strange Alan Cox
2000-11-04 20:11 ` [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by removal of lock_kernel()?(Was:Strange performance behavior of 2.4.0-test9) dean gaudet
2000-11-04 20:43 ` [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by removal of lock_kernel()?(Was:Strange Alan Cox
2000-11-05 4:52 ` dean gaudet
2000-10-31 15:36 ` [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by removal of lock_kernel()?(Was: Strange performance behavior of 2.4.0-test9) Andrew Morton
2000-11-02 12:50 ` kumon
2000-11-01 1:02 ` kumon
2000-11-02 11:09 ` kumon
2000-11-04 5:07 ` Andrew Morton
2000-10-27 8:17 ` Jeff V. Merkey
2000-11-04 5:55 ` Preemptive scheduling of woken-up processes kumon
2000-10-27 10:11 ` Negative scalability by removal of lock_kernel()?(Was: Strange performance behavior of 2.4.0-test9) kumon
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20001030072950.A31668@gruyere.muc.suse.de \
--to=ak@suse.de \
--cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=andrewm@uow.edu.au \
--cc=dean-list-linux-kernel@arctic.org \
--cc=jmerkey@timpanogas.org \
--cc=kumon@flab.fujitsu.co.jp \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=okir@monad.swb.de \
--cc=riel@conectiva.com.br \
--cc=viro@math.psu.edu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®