Re: flock or IPC semaphore for atomic appends
From: A. Sinan Unur (asu1_at_c-o-r-n-e-l-l.edu)
Date: 11/14/03
- Next message: Anno Siegel: "Re: flock or IPC semaphore for atomic appends"
- Previous message: Jeff 'japhy' Pinyan: "Re: Can you reliably make a reference to a capture buffer?"
- In reply to: jtd: "flock or IPC semaphore for atomic appends"
- Next in thread: Anno Siegel: "Re: flock or IPC semaphore for atomic appends"
- Reply: Anno Siegel: "Re: flock or IPC semaphore for atomic appends"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: 14 Nov 2003 15:22:13 GMT
adwser@hotmail.com (jtd) wrote in
news:c57c103.0311140015.7052583b@posting.google.com:
> 2) Why is flock processor intensive? Does flock write something to
> disk when locking/unlocking?
>From perldoc -f flock:
Two potentially non-obvious but traditional "flock" semantics
are that it waits indefinitely until the lock is granted, and
that its locks merely advisory.
I haven't looked at the source, but I think it is this waiting indefinitely
part (polling?) that's causing CPU usage to go up.
Sinan.
-- A. Sinan Unur asu1@c-o-r-n-e-l-l.edu Remove dashes for address Spam bait: mailto:uce@ftc.gov
- Next message: Anno Siegel: "Re: flock or IPC semaphore for atomic appends"
- Previous message: Jeff 'japhy' Pinyan: "Re: Can you reliably make a reference to a capture buffer?"
- In reply to: jtd: "flock or IPC semaphore for atomic appends"
- Next in thread: Anno Siegel: "Re: flock or IPC semaphore for atomic appends"
- Reply: Anno Siegel: "Re: flock or IPC semaphore for atomic appends"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|