httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marc Slemko <ma...@znep.com>
Subject Re: [PATCH] revised death wish on HUP patch
Date Fri, 14 Feb 1997 16:31:39 GMT
On 14 Feb 1997, Paul Richards wrote:

> Marc Slemko <marcs@znep.com> writes:
> 
> > 
> > Happy with this one?  
> 
> When I looked at the problem with signal handling a few months ago I
> thought I commented on the fact that the children are *not* passed a
> signal at all. They are allowed to die naturally when they finish
> processing the request. Are we changing that model? I've been trying to
> catch up on two weeks mail (annual accounts audit and Phd viva both the
> same week!) so I've skimmed quite a lot recently and might not be up to
> speed on the problem. Someone want to give me a quick summary?

Incorrect.  If they were allowed to die naturally, they would not do so
until they reached their limit on requests served per child.  The process
group is sent a HUP.  Sometimes that is lost or blocked for whatever
reason.  When that happens, in moderate load environments (normally see it
when I start getting about a hundred and mumble children) the server
essentially hangs until the child that didn't get the HUP finishes
processing its maxrequests; the parent will block forever on the child
process.  This just avoids that; normally no more signals should be sent,
but if the child doesn't exit within an arbitrary time limit then we get
nasty.



Mime
View raw message