same on HP-UX also.. This is how it looks : /* Cross process serialization techniques */ /* #undef USE_FLOCK_SERIALIZE */ #define USE_SYSVSEM_SERIALIZE 1 /* #undef USE_FCNTL_SERIALIZE */ /* #undef USE_PROC_PTHREAD_SERIALIZE */ /* #undef USE_PTHREAD_SERIALIZE */
/* #undef POSIXSEM_IS_GLOBAL */ /* #undef SYSVSEM_IS_GLOBAL */ /* #undef FCNTL_IS_GLOBAL */ /* #undef FLOCK_IS_GLOBAL */ -Madhu >-----Original Message----- >From: Greg Ames [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 12:35 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: [PATCH] Use mutex locks in mod_specweb99.c > > >Sander Temme wrote: >>>I started seeing the following errors in the specweb99 run >output, when I >>>use mod_specweb99.c with Apache 2.0.43 and worker MPM. The >following patch >>>seems to get rid of the problem. If you're thinking that it >may degrade the >>>response - I did not find much difference though. >>> >>>Can somebody please evaluate and let me know if it's okay ?. >> >> >> Ha! I have seen this too but have had no time to even think >about working on >> it. >> >> I have one question. Your patch mutexes out the acquisition >of the file >> lock. Do these thread mutexes apply only within the process, >or across >> processes as well? In the latter case, we could do away with >the flock >> entirely if we're in a multithreaded environment. In that >case the #ifs >> would move to the _dolock function and we'd have an _unlock >function with >> its own #ifs. > >I dug into APR locks a little bit. The apr_global_mutex_* >functions turn into >two separate syscalls, with #if APR_HAS_THREADS around the >thread mutexing. So >unfortunately they wouldn't save us any syscalls :-( :-( But >they might save a >little bit of function call overhead. > >Another interesting place to look is in >srclib/apr/include/arch/unix/apr_private.h . >There are several xxxx_IS_GLOBAL symbols for various >serialization mechanisms. >On my Linux box, all of them are #undef'ed and commented out, >including fcntl >and flock which are the two choices for apr_file_lock. Madhu, >could you take a >look there and see what you've got? > >Thanks, >Greg > > > >
