httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <...@jaguNET.com>
Subject Re: PR45605 and event MPM
Date Fri, 10 Oct 2008 12:22:55 GMT

On Oct 9, 2008, at 4:53 PM, Greg Ames wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 7:03 PM, Ruediger Pluem <rpluem@apache.org>  
> wrote:
> I am currently looking at PR45605 (https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45605

> )
> and the analysis and the resulting patch in Comment 4 look good to me
> (https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45605#c4). As  
> worker and event MPM
> are very similar I had a look if and how this patch is applicable to  
> the event MPM.
> I noticed that ap_queue_info_wait_for_idler is quite different in  
> worker and event MPM.
>
> I don't think the problem reported by PR45605 exists in the Event MPM.
>

AFAICT, I don't think so either.

> I had to stare at ap_queue_info_wait_for_idler for a long time back  
> when it could be called by two separate threads.  The unserialized  
> access to queue_info->idlers followed by the unconditional decrement  
> outside of the mutex in that section of code made my head twitch  
> when I thought about races on SMP systems.
>
> The two major improvements in Event's fdqueue are:
>
> * doing the atomic decrement first before making a decision about  
> waiting.  The decrement is visible to other threads immediately.
> * using the negative value of idlers to distinguish between when  
> threads (just the listener today) are waiting for idle workers vs.  
> when all workers are busy but nobody else (the listener) is  
> blocked.  That eliminates a situation where the condition variable  
> is signalled unnecessarily, which happens in the PR scenario.
>

Comparing the 2, it does appear that Event includes improvements that
would benefit Worker and vice versa...

Mime
View raw message