apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Justin Erenkrantz <jerenkra...@apache.org>
Subject Re: cvs commit: apr-util/buckets apr_buckets_pipe.c apr_buckets_socket.c
Date Tue, 16 Jul 2002 06:24:24 GMT
On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 05:50:40AM -0000, jerenkrantz@apache.org wrote:
> jerenkrantz    2002/07/15 22:50:40
> 
>   Modified:    buckets  apr_buckets_pipe.c apr_buckets_socket.c
>   Log:
>   Revert rev 1.42 of apr_buckets_socket.c and rev 1.52 of apr_buckets_pipe.c
>   
>   APR_NONBLOCK_READ means that we have no timeout - i.e. that we read
>   immediately.  Leaving the timeout set by the 'upstream' application is
>   incorrect in this state.
>   
>   This fixes httpd-2.0 blocking in check_pipeline_flush() for EATCRLF modes.

Brad's original commit had no chance of ever working as it made
APR_NONBLOCK_READ block.  There was discussion before about this
(and Cliff was right, IMHO), but the key concept missed was that
APR_NONBLOCK_READ means an immediate read, not a timeout-based read.

Let's sum up the APR socket timeouts and how they correspond to the
APR_BLOCK_READ and APR_NONBLOCK_READ enums in apr-util.  This
applies to sockets and pipes on Unix (no idea about Win32).

When the APR socket timeout is < 0, we use a blocking socket.
When the APR socket timeout is >=0, we use a non-blocking socket.

When the timeout is >0 (hence non-blocking) and read() doesn't
return any data, we call apr_wait_for_io_or_timeout() to wait for the
timeout value.  So, the result is that if the timeout value is 0, we
return immediately (one-shot non-blocking read).

APR_BLOCK_READ indicates that the read should wait for the socket's
*timeout* period for data.  It leaves the timeout values alone.  So,
per the socket timeout rules above, if the timeout < 0, then it will
wait indefinitely.  If the timeout is > 0, then we will wait for the
timeout.  And, if the timeout is 0 and APR_BLOCK_READ is called, it
essentially becomes APR_NONBLOCK_READ (see next).

APR_NONBLOCK_READ indicates that the read() should return immediately
in any case.  It should *never* block.  The timeouts don't apply.

So, if your application was using APR_NONBLOCK_READ and expected it
to wait for the timeout period, then it should have been using
APR_BLOCK_READ.  Brad pointed out mod_cgi.c as his example case, but
that uses APR_BLOCK_READ (per above, uses a non-blocking pipe with a
timeout).  So, the timeout value that mod_cgi sets is respected.

I hope this eliminates the confusion.  -- justin

Mime
View raw message