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.
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 email@example.com
> 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 firstname.lastname@example.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Nov 07 2000 - 21:00:17 EST