[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Andrew Morton writes:
> > This patch is a moderate rewrite of __wake_up_common. I'd be
> > interested in seeing how much difference it makes to the
> > performance of Apache when the file-locking serialisation is
> > disabled.
> > - It implements last-in/first-o
On Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 02:36:39PM -0200, Rik van Riel wrote:
> For stuff like ___wait_on_page(), OTOH, you really want FIFO
> wakeup to avoid starvation (yes, I know we're currently doing
Sure agreed. In my _whole_ previous email I was only talking about accept.
Semaphores file locking etc.. all
On Sun, Oct 29, 2000 at 11:45:49AM -0800, dean gaudet wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Oct 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > > The big question is: why is Apache using file locking so
> > > much? Is this normal behaviour for Apache?
> >
> > Apache uses file locking to serialize accept on hosts where accept either
Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> I think it's more expedient at this time to convert
> acquire_fl_sem/release_fl_sem into lock_kernel/unlock_kernel
> (so we _can_ sleep) and to fix the above alleged deadlock
> via the creation of __posix_unblock_lock()
I agree with me. Could you please test the scalabi
Andrew Morton wrote:
> --- linux-2.4.0-test10-pre5/fs/locks.c Tue Oct 24 21:34:13 2000
> +++ linux-akpm/fs/locks.c Sun Oct 29 02:31:10 2000
> @@ -125,10 +125,9 @@
> #include
> #include
>
> -DECLARE_MUTEX(file_lock_sem);
> -
> -#define acquire_fl_sem() down(&file_lock_sem)
> -#def
On Sun, Oct 29, 2000 at 02:46:14AM +1100, Andrew Morton wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > Change the following two macros:
> > acquire_fl_sem()->lock_kernel()
> > release_fl_sem()->unlock_kernel()
> > then
> > 5192 Req/s @8cpu is got. It is same as test8 within fluctuation
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Change the following two macros:
> acquire_fl_sem()->lock_kernel()
> release_fl_sem()->unlock_kernel()
> then
> 5192 Req/s @8cpu is got. It is same as test8 within fluctuation.
hmm.. BKL increases scalability. News at 11.
The big question is: why i
7 matches
Mail list logo
