httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From dean gaudet <>
Subject linux 2.4.x should have SINGLE_LISTEN_UNSERIALIZED_ACCEPT
Date Mon, 30 Oct 2000 23:28:45 GMT
someone want to make a patch to 1.3 which compiles in
SINGLE_LISTEN_UNSERIALIZED_ACCEPT when compiled on 2.4.x or later?  (i
don't see a need to conditionalised this at run-time...)

i was gonna patch it in, 'cept we don't yet check the linux subversion...


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 07:29:51 +0100
From: Andi Kleen <>
To: dean gaudet <>
Cc: Alan Cox <>, Andrew Morton <>,, Andi Kleen <>,
     Alexander Viro <>,
     Jeff V. Merkey <>,
     Rik van Riel <>,,
     Olaf Kirch <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by removal of

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 has
> > bad thundering heard problems or was simply broken with multiple acceptors
> if apache 1.3 is compiled with -DSINGLE_LISTEN_UNSERIALIZED_ACCEPT it'll
> avoid the fcntl() serialisation when there is only one listening port.  
> (it still uses it for multiple listeners... you can read all about my
> logic for that at <>.)
> is it appropriate for this to be defined for newer linux kernels?  i
> haven't kept track, sorry.  tell me what versions to conditionalize it on.

It should not be needed anymore for 2.4, because the accept() wakeup has been

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

View raw message