Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-apr-dev-archive@apr.apache.org Received: (qmail 76317 invoked by uid 500); 1 Sep 2002 00:17:56 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apr.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@apr.apache.org Received: (qmail 76237 invoked from network); 1 Sep 2002 00:17:56 -0000 Message-ID: <3D715CBB.2020000@apache.org> Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 17:18:03 -0700 From: Brian Pane User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020826 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dev@httpd.apache.org CC: dev@apr.apache.org Subject: Re: Bucket management strategies for async MPMs? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Cliff Woolley wrote: >On Sat, 31 Aug 2002, Brian Pane wrote: > > > >>I don't think we can count on the assumption that each conn will >>only be processed by one thread at a time. For example, this race >> >> > >Then we have to at least guarantee that each request can only be processed >by one thread at a time, I think. *None* of the buckets code is >threadsafe, and it's done that way intentionally. A brigade (and its >allocator) can exist in exactly one thread at a time. > > Wouldn't it be sufficient to guarantee that: * each *bucket* can only be processed by one thread at a time, and * allocating/freeing buckets is thread-safe? Brian