Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-new-httpd-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 94245 invoked by uid 500); 1 Mar 2001 19:35:49 -0000 Mailing-List: contact new-httpd-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list new-httpd@apache.org Received: (qmail 94213 invoked from network); 1 Mar 2001 19:35:45 -0000 X-Authentication-Warning: cobra.cs.Virginia.EDU: jcw5q owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 14:35:45 -0500 (EST) From: Cliff Woolley X-X-Sender: To: Subject: Re: some reasons why Apache 2.0 threaded is slower than prefork In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Rating: h31.sny.collab.net 1.6.2 0/1000/N On 1 Mar 2001, Jeff Trawick wrote: > This will be very useful, especially if the semantics of the list > operations will enable them to be implemented as lock-free operations > for certain platforms. It's the "lock-free operations" part that I've been stumbling over so far. If we were just talking prefork, it'd be trivial... but keeping it thread-safe AND lock-free is quite a challenge. --Cliff