Aaron Bannert wrote:
Does it use this atomics implementation by default?
AFAIK, no. By default, (ie, without non-portable-atomics), apr_atomic
uses mutexes.
I wonder if this
binary would run on an older processor (running a modern version of linux).
AFAIK, yes. It's standard x86 assembly.
On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 08:39:27AM -0500, Brian Akins wrote:
I wonder if this
binary would run on an older processor (running a modern version of linux).
AFAIK, yes. It's standard x86 assembly.
All: Please correct me if I am wrong. I'm sure you will ;)
I'm no x86 asm expert, so maybe
On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 12:47:37PM -0800, Aaron Bannert wrote:
On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 08:39:27AM -0500, Brian Akins wrote:
I wonder if this
binary would run on an older processor (running a modern version of linux).
AFAIK, yes. It's standard x86 assembly.
All: Please correct
On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 03:24:15PM -0500, Brian Akins wrote:
I was testing on x86 Linux which appears to do the apr_atomics in assembly.
Does it use this atomics implementation by default? I wonder if this
binary would run on an older processor (running a modern version of linux).
-aaron
Brian Akins wrote:
Backported from 2.1. Stable for me in various loads.
without the non-portable atomic code available and enabled in APR, this is
going to hurt performance, right? (more mutex operations performed in mainline
path for the unlucky who use the non-portable atomics???) is it
Jeff Trawick wrote:
Brian Akins wrote:
Backported from 2.1. Stable for me in various loads.
without the non-portable atomic code available and enabled in APR, this
is going to hurt performance, right? (more mutex operations performed
in mainline path for the unlucky who use the non-portable
Backported from 2.1. Stable for me in various loads.
--
Brian Akins
Senior Systems Engineer
CNN Internet Technologies
--- /home/bakins/src/httpd-2.0.48/server/mpm/worker/fdqueue.c 2003-11-06
08:16:03.0 -0500
+++ fdqueue.c 2003-09-28 23:58:41.0 -0400
@@ -57,26 +57,40 @@
*/
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 08:40:05AM -0500, Brian Akins wrote:
Backported from 2.1. Stable for me in various loads.
Cool! What OS/arch are you using? Also, any idea how well it performs
compared to before the patch?
-aaron
Aaron Bannert wrote:
Cool! What OS/arch are you using? Also, any idea how well it performs
compared to before the patch?
Currently Linux on i386 (with non-portable-atomics). I have not noticed
any increase in performance, but I can, now, easily have 4096 active
clients, whereas things got
