httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <...@jaguNET.com>
Subject Re: one word syncronize once more
Date Fri, 20 Jul 2007 16:50:04 GMT
Agreed... There are lots of places where we really don't need
true synchronization, since 100% accuracy in the "real"
values aren't crucial.

On Jul 20, 2007, at 12:24 PM, Greg Ames wrote:

> please see rev. 558039.  requests_this_child does not need to be  
> 100% accurate.  the cure below is worse than the disease.
>
> Greg
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Dmytro Fedonin <Dmytro.Fedonin@Sun.COM>
> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 11:49:42 AM
> Subject: one word syncronize once more
>
> Hi all,
>
> I've got some response which shows that I was not clear enough in  
> my previous
> post. Fullproof solution would be:
>
> Index: server/mpm/worker/worker.c
> ===================================================================
> --- server/mpm/worker/worker.c  (revision 545597)
> +++ server/mpm/worker/worker.c  (working copy)
> @@ -892,7 +887,7 @@
>           bucket_alloc = apr_bucket_alloc_create(ptrans);
>           process_socket(ptrans, csd, process_slot, thread_slot,  
> bucket_alloc);
>           worker_sockets[thread_slot] = NULL;
> -        requests_this_child--; /* FIXME: should be synchronized -  
> aaron */
> +        apr_atomic_dec32(&requests_this_child); /* much slower  
> than important */
>           apr_pool_clear(ptrans);
>           last_ptrans = ptrans;
>       }
> Because we don't care about if (requests_this_child <= 0) it would  
> be enough. But
> it is too way slow and is not so important.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________ 
> ______________
> Get the free Yahoo! toolbar and rest assured with the added  
> security of spyware protection.
> http://new.toolbar.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/norton/index.php
>


Mime
View raw message