> 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(). Interesting > The fact that the throughput is 3-4 time worse for 2, 3, 4 and 5 > server processes is completely wierd. Perhaps some strange miss > pattern, but it doesn't do it on 2.4. I'll dump this problem > onto the netdev list, see if anyone has any bright ideas. That would be consistent with the fact that thttpd is single threaded and kicks apache for performance in 2.2 (less so 2.4!) > - 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/
- Re: [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by removal of lock_k... Andrew Morton
- Re: [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by removal of l... Linus Torvalds
- Re: [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by removal ... Alan Cox
- Re: [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by remo... Linus Torvalds
- Re: [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by ... Andrea Arcangeli
- Re: [PATCH] Re: Negative scalabilit... Andrew Morton
- Re: [PATCH] Re: Negative scalab... Andrea Arcangeli
- Re: [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by remo... dean gaudet
- Re: [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by remo... Andrew Morton
- Re: [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by ... Alan Cox
- Re: [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by ... Linus Torvalds
- Re: [PATCH] Re: Negative scalabilit... dean gaudet
- Re: [PATCH] Re: Negative scalab... David S. Miller
- Re: [PATCH] Re: Negative sc... dean gaudet
- Re: [PATCH] Re: Negative scalabilit... Andrew Morton
- Re: [PATCH] Re: Negative scalab... Alan Cox
- Re: [PATCH] Re: Negative scalab... lamont
- Re: [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by removal ... dean gaudet
- Re: [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by removal of ... dean gaudet