httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From <...@covalent.net>
Subject Re: Problem found in perform_idle_server_maintenance on prefork.
Date Wed, 28 Feb 2001 23:16:07 GMT
On Wed, 28 Feb 2001, Ben Laurie wrote:

> Greg Stein wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 08:24:59PM +0000, Ben Laurie wrote:
> > > dean gaudet wrote:
> > > > and actually that graceful die flag might as well live in the scoreboard.
> > > > i can't remember why the graceful die flag doesn't live in the scoreboard
> > > > in 1.3... maybe i just never thought of it.  hrm.  i bet i just didn't
> > > > bother to move it there because 1.3 code had to be signal aware anyhow.
> > > > you may want to move this to the scoreboard in 2.0 to eliminate the
> > > > SIGWINCH in the children, it'll mean fewer potential problems with
> > > > non-signal aware 3rd party code.
> > >
> > > IIRC, I originally put the graceful die flag in the scoreboard. The
> > > issue was that if your server wasn't heavily loaded, many child
> > > processes didn't ever wake up to discover they should die. So you had to
> > > signal to interrupt the accept() they were blocked in.
> >
> > Hmm. Do we still block on accept()? Or do we block on select()? If the
> > latter, then we can wake them up with the "pipe of death" thingy.
>
> Dunno, but I can't think why we couldn't block on select() if we don't
> already (except I'll wager there's some darn braindead system out there
> that won't let us).
>
> BTW, its coming back to me - it was even more elegant - in the
> scoreboard was a "current generation" number - if a child's own
> generation was not equal to the current generation, then it died.

That generation is still there.  :-)

Ryan

_______________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom                        	rbb@apache.org
406 29th St.
San Francisco, CA 94131
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Mime
View raw message