Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Sun, 5 Nov 2000 12:21:54 -0800 (PST) | From | dean gaudet <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by removal of |
| |
the numbers didn't look that bad for the small numbers of concurrent clients on 2.2... a few % slower without the serialisation. compared to orders of magnitude slower with large numbers of concurrent client.
oh, someone reminded me of the other reason sysvsems suck: a cgi can grab the semaphore and hold it, causing a DoS. of course folks could, and should use suexec/cgiwrap to avoid this.
-dean
On Sat, 4 Nov 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > Even 2.2.x can be fixed to do the wake-one for accept(), if required. > > Do we really want to retrofit wake_one to 2.2. I know Im not terribly keen to > try and backport all the mechanism. I think for 2.2 using the semaphore is a > good approach. Its a hack to fix an old OS kernel. For 2.4 its not needed > - > 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/ >
- 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/
|  |