lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Nov]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by removal of lock_kernel()?(Was:Strange performance behavior of 2.4.0-test9)
    On Sat, 4 Nov 2000, Andrew Morton wrote:

    > Dean,
    >
    > neither flock() nor fcntl() serialisation are effective
    > on linux 2.2 or linux 2.4.

    i have to admit the last time i timed any of the methods on linux was in
    2.0.x days. thanks for the updated data!

    > For kernel 2.2 I recommend that Apache consider using
    > sysv semaphores for serialisation. They use wake-one.

    sysv semaphores have a very unfortunate negative feature -- if the admin
    kill -9's the server (impatient admins do this all the time) then you end
    up leaving a semaphore lying around. sysvsem don't have the usual unix
    unlink semantics. actually flock has the same problem... which is why i
    generally preferred fcntl whenever it was a performance wash, as it was
    back in 2.0.x days.

    however given the vast performance difference i think it warrants the
    change. i'll include your results with the commit.

    > For kernel 2.4 I recommend that Apache use unserialised
    > accept.

    per linus' request i'll unserialise 2.2 as well.

    i'll leave 2.0.x settings alone.

    (oh yeah, and compile-time only detection.)

    -dean

    -
    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:4.127 / U:0.004 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site