On Tue, 7 Nov 2000, Andrew Morton wrote:
> 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
>
> It's a 16-liner! I'll cheerfully admit that this patch
> may be completely broken, but hey, it's free. I suggest
> that _something_ has to be done for 2.2 now, because
> Apache has switched to unserialised accept().
This is why I'd love to _not_ see silly work-arounds in apache: we
obviously _can_ fix the places where our performance sucks, but only if we
don't have other band-aids hiding the true issues.
For example, with a file-locking apache, we'd have to fix the (noticeably
harder) file locking thing to be wake-one instead, and even then we'd
never be able to do as well as something that gets the same wake-one thing
without the two extra system calls.
The patch looks superficially fine to me, although it does seem to add
another cache-line to the wakeup setup - it migth be worth-while to have
the exclusive state closer. But maybe I just didn't count right.
Linus
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Nov 07 2000 - 21:00:19 EST