You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@apr.apache.org by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com> on 2002/03/20 18:49:32 UTC
APR_LOCK_DEFAULT ordering
Are people happy with the priority order of the accept mutex?
Right now it's flock -> sysvsem -> fcntl -> pthread.
I think it should be pthread -> sysvsem -> fcntl -> flock, which
is what 1.3 has...
--
===========================================================================
Jim Jagielski [|] jim@jaguNET.com [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/
"A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order
will lose both and deserve neither" - T.Jefferson
Re: APR_LOCK_DEFAULT ordering
Posted by Aaron Bannert <aa...@clove.org>.
On Wed, Mar 20, 2002 at 12:49:32PM -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Are people happy with the priority order of the accept mutex?
> Right now it's flock -> sysvsem -> fcntl -> pthread.
>
> I think it should be pthread -> sysvsem -> fcntl -> flock, which
> is what 1.3 has...
Now that we're more confident in pthread, I'm a huge +1 for this
second ordering.
-aaron
Re: APR_LOCK_DEFAULT ordering
Posted by Jeff Trawick <tr...@attglobal.net>.
Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com> writes:
> Are people happy with the priority order of the accept mutex?
> Right now it's flock -> sysvsem -> fcntl -> pthread.
>
> I think it should be pthread -> sysvsem -> fcntl -> flock, which
> is what 1.3 has...
I realize everybody has jumped in and +1-ed you, but I don't see how
you can compare the two orders which you stated above.
I would express the current APR default selection (configure.in, line
1303) this way:
1st choice : fcntl
2nd : pthread
3rd : flock
4th : SysV sem
I guess I'd vote for this order on systems where we don't have
specific knowledge (e.g., use sysvsem for myOS >= x):
1st choice: pthread
2nd choice: fcntl
3rd choice: SysV sem
4th choice: flock
Also, in 1.3, I think there is a lot more explicit selection (i.e.,
case myOS use foo) that needs to be brought forward to APR so that
these priorities are irrelevant (they should only be used when we
don't have specific OS knowledge). Even if we think we ave the
priorities the same between 2.0 and 1.3 it isn't really the same if we
don't bring forward the cases where the priorities aren't even used.
--
Jeff Trawick | trawick@attglobal.net
Born in Roswell... married an alien...
Re: APR_LOCK_DEFAULT ordering
Posted by Jeff Trawick <tr...@attglobal.net>.
Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com> writes:
> Are people happy with the priority order of the accept mutex?
> Right now it's flock -> sysvsem -> fcntl -> pthread.
>
> I think it should be pthread -> sysvsem -> fcntl -> flock, which
> is what 1.3 has...
I realize everybody has jumped in and +1-ed you, but I don't see how
you can compare the two orders which you stated above.
I would express the current APR default selection (configure.in, line
1303) this way:
1st choice : fcntl
2nd : pthread
3rd : flock
4th : SysV sem
I guess I'd vote for this order on systems where we don't have
specific knowledge (e.g., use sysvsem for myOS >= x):
1st choice: pthread
2nd choice: fcntl
3rd choice: SysV sem
4th choice: flock
Also, in 1.3, I think there is a lot more explicit selection (i.e.,
case myOS use foo) that needs to be brought forward to APR so that
these priorities are irrelevant (they should only be used when we
don't have specific OS knowledge). Even if we think we ave the
priorities the same between 2.0 and 1.3 it isn't really the same if we
don't bring forward the cases where the priorities aren't even used.
--
Jeff Trawick | trawick@attglobal.net
Born in Roswell... married an alien...
Re: APR_LOCK_DEFAULT ordering
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <je...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Mar 20, 2002 at 12:49:32PM -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> I think it should be pthread -> sysvsem -> fcntl -> flock, which
> is what 1.3 has...
+1. -- justin
Re: APR_LOCK_DEFAULT ordering
Posted by Aaron Bannert <aa...@clove.org>.
On Wed, Mar 20, 2002 at 12:49:32PM -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Are people happy with the priority order of the accept mutex?
> Right now it's flock -> sysvsem -> fcntl -> pthread.
>
> I think it should be pthread -> sysvsem -> fcntl -> flock, which
> is what 1.3 has...
Now that we're more confident in pthread, I'm a huge +1 for this
second ordering.
-aaron