Re: [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by removal of lock_kernel()?(Was:

From: Alan Cox (alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk)
Date: Sat Oct 28 2000 - 11:20:44 EST

Next message: Alan Cox: "Re: Linux-2.4.0-test9 not Open Source"
Previous message: Andrew Morton: "Re: RTNL assert"
In reply to: Andrew Morton: "Re: [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by removal of lock_kernel()?(Was: Strange performance behavior of 2.4.0-test9)"
Next in thread: dean gaudet: "Re: [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by removal of lock_kernel()?(Was:"
Reply: dean gaudet: "Re: [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by removal of lock_kernel()?(Was:"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

> 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

-
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/

Next message: Alan Cox: "Re: Linux-2.4.0-test9 not Open Source"
Previous message: Andrew Morton: "Re: RTNL assert"
In reply to: Andrew Morton: "Re: [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by removal of lock_kernel()?(Was: Strange performance behavior of 2.4.0-test9)"
Next in thread: dean gaudet: "Re: [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by removal of lock_kernel()?(Was:"
Reply: dean gaudet: "Re: [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by removal of lock_kernel()?(Was:"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 31 2000 - 21:00:23 EST