[lkml]   [2000]   [Oct]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by removal of lock_kernel()?(Was: Strange performance behavior of 2.4.0-test9)
On Tue, 31 Oct 2000, Andrew Morton wrote:

> Dean, it looks like the same problem will occur with flock()-based
> serialisation. Does Apache/Linux ever use that option?

from apache/src/include/ap_config.h in the linux section there's

/* flock is faster ... but hasn't been tested on 1.x systems */
/* PR#3531 indicates flock() may not be stable, probably depends on
* kernel version. Go back to using fcntl, but provide a way for
* folks to tweak their Configuration to get flock.

so you should be able to -DUSE_FLOCK_SERIALIZED_ACCEPT to try it.

(flock is less desirable than fcntl in general because it requires the
lock file to be kept around for the duration of the server, you can't
unlock() it immediately after creat().)


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:45    [W:0.102 / U:1.572 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site