Messages in this thread |  | | From | Paul Marquis <> | Date | Thu, 02 Nov 2000 17:53:48 -0500 | Subject | Re: 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/
|  |