lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Nov]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: select() bug
I guess in theory, you're right, though if a write() could succeed,
shouldn't select() say that it would?

And this assumes you're calling select() with a timeout. In Apache,
the caretaker process wakes up periodically and polls the pipe with a
timeout of zero. If it gets back the pipe is not writable, it kills
the process. With this false negative situation, this is a bad thing.

Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > that are log file handlers are dead. If select() reports it can't
> > write immediately, Apache terminates and restarts the child process,
> > creating unnecessary load on the system.
>
> Is there anything saying that select has to report ready the instant a byte
> would fit. Certainly its better for performance to reduce the context switch
> rate by encouraging blocking

--
Paul Marquis
pmarquis@iname.com

If it's tourist season, why can't we shoot them?
-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:45    [W:0.093 / U:8.808 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site