Re: [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by removal of lock_kernel()?(Was:Strangeperformance behavior of 2.4.0-test9)

2000-11-04 Thread dean gaudet
On Sat, 4 Nov 2000, Andrew Morton wrote: > Dean, > > neither flock() nor fcntl() serialisation are effective > on linux 2.2 or linux 2.4. i have to admit the last time i timed any of the methods on linux was in 2.0.x days. thanks for the updated data! > For kernel 2.2 I recommend that Apache

Re: [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by removal of lock_kernel()?(Was:Strangeperformance behavior of 2.4.0-test9)

2000-11-04 Thread dean gaudet
On Fri, 3 Nov 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote: > Please use unserialized accept() _always_, because we can fix that. i can unserialise the single socket case, but the multiple socket case is not so simple. the executive summary is that when you've got multiple sockets you have to use select().

Re: [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by removal of lock_kernel()?(Was:Strangeperformance behavior of 2.4.0-test9)

2000-11-04 Thread dean gaudet
On Sat, 4 Nov 2000, Andrew Morton wrote: Dean, neither flock() nor fcntl() serialisation are effective on linux 2.2 or linux 2.4. i have to admit the last time i timed any of the methods on linux was in 2.0.x days. thanks for the updated data! For kernel 2.2 I recommend that Apache

Re: [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by removal of lock_kernel()?(Was:Strangeperformance behavior of 2.4.0-test9)

2000-11-04 Thread dean gaudet
On Fri, 3 Nov 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote: Please use unserialized accept() _always_, because we can fix that. i can unserialise the single socket case, but the multiple socket case is not so simple. the executive summary is that when you've got multiple sockets you have to use select().