Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 23 Dec 1999 17:58:33 +0100 (CET) | From | Arjan van de Ven <> | Subject | Re: 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/
| |