On Thu, Nov 29, 2001 at 09:31:01AM -0800, Ryan Bloom wrote: > On Thursday 29 November 2001 09:20 am, Brian Pane wrote: > > So...please forgive me if this has already been considered and dismissed > > a long time ago, but...why can't the listener and worker be the same > > thread? > > That's where we were before worker, with the threaded MPM. There are > thread management issues with that model, and it doesn't scale as well.
Not exactly, in Brian's model we still have the benefit of only having one thread per process in the accept loop at one time, which means significantly reduced overhead from lock contention (remember my posts a few months back about how terrible fcntl() gets when there are even more than just a few threads/processes contending for the lock?). Thread mangement (at shutdown) has always been a problem in our threaded MPMs. I'm still not completely comfortable with the current state of worker, but that has more to do with signals than threads. -aaron
