From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Apr 4 06:56:58 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id GAA11363 for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 4 Apr 1997 06:56:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from wgold.demon.co.uk (wgold.demon.co.uk [158.152.96.124]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id GAA11353 for ; Fri, 4 Apr 1997 06:56:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from wgold.demon.co.uk by wgold.demon.co.uk (NTMail 3.02.10) with ESMTP id ga001306 for ; Fri, 4 Apr 1997 11:11:31 +0100 Message-ID: <3344D3D3.618A@wgold.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 04 Apr 1997 11:11:31 +0100 From: James Mansion Organization: Westongold Ltd X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (WinNT; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: FreeBSD-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: apache like preforking apps and high loads References: <199704031653.LAA20772@chai.plexuscom.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Info: Westongold Ltd: +44 1992 620025 www.westongold.com Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Bakul Shah wrote: > Fairness is probably not an issue when an app. consists of a number > of anonymous servers but in general one would want to make sure that > if N processes are waiting on accept() on the same socket, no one > process is starved of accepting. How do you ensure that? > Why would you necessarily want this, apart from aesthetics? I don't think this behaviour is mandated anywhere. In any case, presumably (hopefully) the wakeup goes to the process with the highest scheduling priority. If the scheduler does dynamic adjustment based on CPU time consumed 'recently' then waiters will be favoured over processes that ran recently, and you'll get th eeffect that you want. James