Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 29 Oct 2000 14:46:13 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 29 Oct 2000 14:46:04 -0500 Received: from twinlark.arctic.org ([204.107.140.52]:11021 "HELO twinlark.arctic.org") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Sun, 29 Oct 2000 14:45:50 -0500 Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 11:45:49 -0800 (PST) From: dean gaudet To: Alan Cox cc: Andrew Morton , kumon@flab.fujitsu.co.jp, Andi Kleen , Alexander Viro , "Jeff V. Merkey" , Rik van Riel , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Olaf Kirch Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by removal of lock_kernel()?(Was: 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 On Sat, 28 Oct 2000, Alan Cox wrote: > > The big question is: why is Apache using file locking so > > much? Is this normal behaviour for Apache? > > Apache uses file locking to serialize accept on hosts where accept either has > bad thundering heard problems or was simply broken with multiple acceptors if apache 1.3 is compiled with -DSINGLE_LISTEN_UNSERIALIZED_ACCEPT it'll avoid the fcntl() serialisation when there is only one listening port. (it still uses it for multiple listeners... you can read all about my logic for that at .) is it appropriate for this to be defined for newer linux kernels? i haven't kept track, sorry. tell me what versions to conditionalize it on. -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/