httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Aram W. Mirzadeh" <...@qosina.com>
Subject Re: votes for current patch round...
Date Tue, 05 Sep 1995 18:28:53 GMT

If you check Linux 1.2.13 they have remade this section.  I've talked with
the Linux networking people and do not recommend playing with this 
part of the code.  

1.3.x is supposedly rewritting this entire thing.   If you like to follow the 
discussion you can send a message to Majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
with subscribe linux-kernel <address> in '<>'.  They're talking about it
right now.

<Aram>


At 01:14 PM 9/5/95 -0400, you wrote:
>Please, this is a Linux kernel patch. The relevant function from Linux'
>net/af_inet.c is shown below, with its hardcoded listen backlog limit.
>
>This is from Linux 1.2.9.
>
>static int inet_listen(struct socket *sock, int backlog)
>{
>        struct sock *sk = (struct sock *) sock->data;
>
>        if(inet_autobind(sk)!=0)
>                return -EAGAIN;
>
>        /* We might as well re use these. */ 
>        /*
>         * note that the backlog is "unsigned char", so truncate it
>         * somewhere. We might as well truncate it to what everybody
>         * else does..
>         */
>        if (backlog > 5)
>                backlog = 5;
>        sk->max_ack_backlog = backlog;
>        if (sk->state != TCP_LISTEN)
>        {
>                sk->ack_backlog = 0;
>                sk->state = TCP_LISTEN;
>        }
>        return(0);
>}
>
>
>aram W. Mirzadeh liltingly intones:
>> 
>> At 10:17 AM 9/5/95 EDT, you wrote:
>> >First, explanations for the vetoes:
>> >
>> >interrupt_accept: 
>> >
>> >  I've already aired my objections to this one, but for the record:
>> >
>> >  By all accounts, the pause problems on linux, as with similar
>> >  problems long since observed on other systems, are due to the number
>> >  of pending connections on the port 80 socket exceeding the kernel's
>> >  fixed limit.  This patch does not cure that problem.  Furthermore,
>> >  if the problem is cured properly (by raising the limit, however you
>> >  do that on Linux --- it wouldn't surprise me if it requires
>> >  recompiling the kernel, since that's what's needed on SunOS), then
>> >  the patch is not needed.  
>> 
>> This is not a kernel bug.  It's a TCP bug, which recompiling the kernel 
>> does not fix.  There is no value in linux for this to increase.  Linux's
kernel
>> is all source, so it's not as complicated as SunOS and such... anyway as 
>> I said, we really don't have to include the patch in the disterbution,
but have
>> it as a 'if you're having problems try this patch'.   I belive it should be
>> included
>> as a http_main.c.linux file.  
>> 
>> Another pointer I would like to make is, whatever problems it may cause on
>> other system, the combination of this patch, and linux-1.2.13 does fix the 
>> problem, maybe it should be a #ifdef LINUX <patch>  #else <nopatch> #endif
>> case?
>> 
>> >
>> >  If there is a separate Linux bug, different from the
>> >  pending-connections limit, which is cured by this patch, I'll lift
>> >  the veto, but that can only be tested by running an unmodified
>> >  server with a fixed kernel.
>> 
>> That's all I belive... no other problems.
>> 
>> --
>> Aram W. Mirzadeh, MIS Manager, Qosina Corporation
>> http://www.qosina.com/~awm/, awm@qosina.com
>> Apache httpd server team http://www.apache.org
>> 
>> 
>> 
>
>chuck
>Chuck Murcko	Telebase Systems, Inc.	Wayne PA	chuck@telebase.com
>And now, on a lighter note:
>Radioactive cats have 18 half-lives.
>
>
--
Aram W. Mirzadeh, MIS Manager, Qosina Corporation
http://www.qosina.com/~awm/, awm@qosina.com
Apache httpd server team http://www.apache.org



Mime
View raw message