public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Dave Wagner" <wagner@blarg.net>
To: <torvalds@transmeta.com>
Cc: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by removal of  lock_kernel()?(Was:Strange performance behavior of 2.4.0-test9)
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 20:19:28 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <001601c046df$96956b80$0400a8c0@berlin> (raw)

Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> No.
>
> Please use unserialized accept() _always_, because we can fix that.
>
> Even 2.2.x can be fixed to do the wake-one for accept(), if required.
> It's not going to be any worse than the current apache config, and
> basically the less games apache plays, the better the kernel can try to
> accomodate what apache _really_ wants done.  When playing games, you
> hide what you really want done, and suddenly kernel profiles etc end up
> being completely useless, because they no longer give the data we needed
> to fix the problem.
>
> Basically, the whole serialization crap is all about the Apache people
> saying the equivalent of "the OS does a bad job on something we consider
> to be incredibly important, so we do something else instead to hide it".
>
> And regardless of _what_ workaround Apache does, whether it is the sucky
> fcntl() thing or using SysV semaphores, it's going to hide the real
> issue and mean that it never gets fixed properly.
>
> And in the end it will result in really really bad performance.
>
> Instead, if apache had just done the thing it wanted to do in the first
> place, the wake-one accept() semantics would have happened a hell of a
> lot earlier.
>
> Now it's there in 2.4.x. Please use it. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE don't play
> games trying to outsmart the OS, it will just hurt Apache in the long run.
>

But how would you suggest people using 2.2 configure their
Apache?  Will flock/fcntl or semaphores perform better (albeit
"uglier") than unserialized accept()'s in 2.2.  I'm willing
and expecting to rebuild apache when 2.4 is released.  I do
not, though, want to leave performance on the table today,
just so I can say that my apache binary is 2.4-ready.

Do any of the apache serialization methods (flock/fcntl/semops)
have any performance improvement over unserialized accept() with
Apache running on a 2.2 kernel?

Dave Wagner

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

             reply	other threads:[~2000-11-05  4:23 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2000-11-05  4:19 Dave Wagner [this message]
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2000-10-27  6:32 Negative scalability by removal of lock_kernel()?(Was: Strange performance behavior of 2.4.0-test9) Jeff V. Merkey
2000-10-27  7:13 ` Alexander Viro
2000-10-27  7:46   ` Andi Kleen
2000-10-27 10:23     ` Andrew Morton
2000-10-27 12:57       ` [PATCH] " kumon
2000-10-28 15:46         ` Andrew Morton
2000-10-28 15:58           ` Andi Kleen
2000-10-28 16:05           ` Jeff Garzik
2000-10-28 16:46           ` Andrew Morton
2000-10-30  9:27             ` kumon
2000-10-30 15:00               ` Andrew Morton
2000-10-30 23:24                 ` dean gaudet
2000-11-04  5:08                   ` [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by removal of lock_kernel()?(Was:Strange " Andrew Morton
2000-11-04  6:23                     ` Linus Torvalds
2000-11-04 20:03                       ` dean gaudet
2000-11-04 20:11                     ` dean gaudet
2000-10-31 15:36         ` [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by removal of lock_kernel()?(Was: Strange " Andrew Morton
2000-11-01  1:02           ` kumon
2000-11-02 11:09           ` kumon
2000-11-02 12:50             ` kumon
2000-11-04  5:07             ` Andrew Morton

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to='001601c046df$96956b80$0400a8c0@berlin' \
    --to=wagner@blarg.net \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=torvalds@transmeta.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox