Re: [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by removal of

dean gaudet
2000-11-05T20:22:16Z

the numbers didn't look that bad for the small numbers of concurrent
clients on 2.2... a few % slower without the serialisation. compared to
orders of magnitude slower with large numbers of concurrent client.

oh, someone reminded me of the other reason sysvsems suck: a cgi can grab
the semaphore and hold it, causing a DoS. of course folks could, and
should use suexec/cgiwrap to avoid this.

-dean

On Sat, 4 Nov 2000, Alan Cox wrote:

> > Even 2.2.x can be fixed to do the wake-one for accept(), if required.
>
> Do we really want to retrofit wake_one to 2.2. I know Im not terribly keen to
> try and backport all the mechanism. I think for 2.2 using the semaphore is a
> good approach. Its a hack to fix an old OS kernel. For 2.4 its not needed
> -
> 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/