Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 08:25:42 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net> To: Zach Brown <zab@zabbo.net> Cc: Jef Poskanzer <jef@acme.com>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: thttpd hack for sendfile and accept filters. Message-ID: <20010421082542.P1790@fw.wintelcom.net> In-Reply-To: <20010421110308.C8818@erasmus.off.net>; from zab@zabbo.net on Sat, Apr 21, 2001 at 11:03:08AM -0400 References: <200104201611.JAA95537@bomb.acme.com> <20010420093349.X1790@fw.wintelcom.net> <20010421094738.B7494@erasmus.off.net> <20010421074811.O1790@fw.wintelcom.net> <20010421110308.C8818@erasmus.off.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Zach Brown <zab@zabbo.net> [010421 08:03] wrote: > > > or so the numbers have lead me to beleive. Its still an annoying > > > design, but has someone come up with real numbers to show that accept() > > > hurding is a problem for waiters that do real work after accept() ? > > > > Accept herding isn't a problem under FreeBSD because the kernel doesn't > > allow it to happen. > > yes, as was previously mentioned. linux has also had "exclusive" wait > queues for quite some time, but thats not the point either :) Linux has had them for under a year. In fact that was a major presentation at the last USENIX. > I wasn't asking how the problem was handled in the kernel, but > whether people have ever found profiles of meaningful workloads the show > it being a problem. sorry if that wasn't clear. I don't understand what you're asking. If it's handled in the kernel then it can't be a problem. -- -Alfred Perlstein - [alfred@freebsd.org] Represent yourself, show up at BABUG http://www.babug.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010421082542.P1790>