Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 15:22:16 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 15:22:06 -0500 Received: from twinlark.arctic.org ([204.107.140.52]:21516 "HELO twinlark.arctic.org") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 15:21:55 -0500 Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 12:21:54 -0800 (PST) From: dean gaudet To: Alan Cox cc: Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by removal of In-Reply-To: Message-ID: X-comment: visit http://arctic.org/~dean/legal for information regarding copyright and disclaimer. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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/