Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of bojan@rexursive.com designates
 150.101.121.179 as permitted sender)
Subject: Re: Events, Destruction and Locking
From: Bojan Smojver <bojan@rexursive.com>
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
In-Reply-To: <1247014865.2811.309.camel@shrek.rexursive.com>
References: <4239a4320907062220k21987b38uebbd3e7b1c7f0f37@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4A5332CD.5050101@sharp.fm>
	 <4239a4320907070514q286b87bbx2646ed5fb7e279ab@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4A5341E7.9080801@sharp.fm>
	 <4239a4320907070639xf953b6u4905514e98c0dee8@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4A535534.5080906@sharp.fm> <1247014865.2811.309.camel@shrek.rexursive.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2009 11:11:00 +1000
Message-Id: <1247101860.2811.315.camel@shrek.rexursive.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Wed, 2009-07-08 at 11:01 +1000, Bojan Smojver wrote:
> So, the loop would be:
> 
> - poll()
> - try assembling a full request from data read so far
>   - process if successful
>   - go back to poll() if not
> 
> Too naive?

I see that we'd most likely get stuck with the accept mutex (i.e. if
another process had it, we would not be poll()-ing already accepted fds
any more).

We could work around this by using apr_proc_mutex_trylock() if there are
any already accepted fds. If this fails, we just poll() already accepted
fds (i.e. someone is already poll()-ing to accept()). Otherwise, we
poll() the lot.

-- 
Bojan