lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Dec]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Bloat? (khttpd)
On Thu, 23 Dec 1999 kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru wrote:

[snip]

[2nd issue]
> Another, but related, thing: khttpd grabs user lock on socket
> stolen from hash table. It breaks one of basic assumptions:
> backlogging does not occur, if socket is orphan.

> The first problem was mainly unsolvable inside khttpd.
> It is impossible to get bh lock in user process context. It is already
> solved (to 2.3.15) inside TCP, and solution is not so bad.
> Actually, later it even allowed to relax some constraints for
> backlog processing, so that the result is not purely negative 8).

You mean that even if there was no kHTTPd, the current "inside TCP"
solution is a good thing?

> The second flaw is more or less easy: if khttpd kept slave socket open,
> as all normal users do, rather than stole it from hash table,
> it would remove the problem.

I am uncertain that I understand you correctly.
Are you talking about the "tcp_v4_lookup_listener" call (ie. the socket
from the webserver) or about the fact that kHTTPd loses interest in the
connection from the other end, once it is in the accept-queue belonging to
the webserver?

Either way is fixable I think/hope.

Greetings,
Arjan van de Ven



-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:55    [W:0.042 / U:1.964 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site