From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Apr 11 16: 7:36 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from resnet.uoregon.edu (resnet.uoregon.edu [128.223.122.47]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C121237B423 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 16:07:31 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dwhite@resnet.uoregon.edu) Received: from localhost (dwhite@localhost) by resnet.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f3BN7PI53416; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 16:07:25 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 16:07:25 -0700 (PDT) From: Doug White To: Alfred Perlstein Cc: Dan Phoenix , Subject: Re: lockf in apache In-Reply-To: <20010410131254.V15938@fw.wintelcom.net> Message-ID: X-All-Your-Base: are belong to us MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Tue, 10 Apr 2001, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > Basically, when apache is listening on multiple IPs/ports it needs > to select() on several filedescriptors. The problem (under FreeBSD > at least) is that whenever you have some process select()'ing on > a descriptor and another process wants to do the same you get a > "select collision", a collision requires that all processes waiting > on the same select channel wake up then reassert thier desire to > select. So... if you have 500 apache processes select()'ing and > one wakes up to service a request, finished serving, then goes to > select again, all the rest (499) have to wake up and reaffirm thier > desire to select(). We haven't applied wakeup_one() to select() yet? (I think I've argued about this before.) Someone get cracking! :) Doug White | FreeBSD: The Power to Serve dwhite@resnet.uoregon.edu | www.FreeBSD.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message