httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Bill Stoddard" <b...@wstoddard.com>
Subject Re: [Win32] Current CVS crashes on shutdown
Date Tue, 19 Mar 2002 15:41:40 GMT


> On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 06:49:28AM -0800, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> > > To protect against that we either need thread cancellation, and
> > > register a cleanup with pool B that will cancel the thread if
> > > the pool is destroyed.  Or, we need other means of protection
> > > against double destruction (refcounting of pool users(threads)
> > > comes to mind).
> >
> > The only way I see to do this is to make destruction of a thread's pool
> > kill the thread.  Of course, that isn't easy to do, because the thread
> > could be in a non-cancelable state.  The only other option is to kill
> > the cleanup in the thread-exit code if you have already cleared the
> > pool.  I am not sure how easy or hard that would be do to though.
>
> I've always been of the opinion that we shouldn't be forcing threads to
> be tied to threads. My prefered thread API is not pool aware, leaving
> the app author to create and pass subpools through the opaque data to
> the thread and manage their own scope or explicit destruction.
>

I agree... threads and pools should not be tied together. In the future, we want to be
able to make Apache 2 do event driven network i/o which means that one thread might
initiate and i/o and another thread completes the i/o. A single HTTP request/response
transaction might be touched by many threads and we do not want the storage for the
transaction to be tied in any way to any one thread.

Bill


Mime
View raw message