Linus Torvalds wrote: > > No. > > Please use unserialized accept() _always_, because we can fix that. > > Even 2.2.x can be fixed to do the wake-one for accept(), if required. > It's not going to be any worse than the current apache config, and > basically the less games apache plays, the better the kernel can try to > accomodate what apache _really_ wants done. When playing games, you > hide what you really want done, and suddenly kernel profiles etc end up > being completely useless, because they no longer give the data we needed > to fix the problem. > > Basically, the whole serialization crap is all about the Apache people > saying the equivalent of "the OS does a bad job on something we consider > to be incredibly important, so we do something else instead to hide it". > > And regardless of _what_ workaround Apache does, whether it is the sucky > fcntl() thing or using SysV semaphores, it's going to hide the real > issue and mean that it never gets fixed properly. > > And in the end it will result in really really bad performance. > > Instead, if apache had just done the thing it wanted to do in the first > place, the wake-one accept() semantics would have happened a hell of a > lot earlier. > > Now it's there in 2.4.x. Please use it. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE don't play > games trying to outsmart the OS, it will just hurt Apache in the long run. > But how would you suggest people using 2.2 configure their Apache? Will flock/fcntl or semaphores perform better (albeit "uglier") than unserialized accept()'s in 2.2. I'm willing and expecting to rebuild apache when 2.4 is released. I do not, though, want to leave performance on the table today, just so I can say that my apache binary is 2.4-ready. Do any of the apache serialization methods (flock/fcntl/semops) have any performance improvement over unserialized accept() with Apache running on a 2.2 kernel? Dave Wagner - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
