httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Thomas Eckert <thomas.r.w.eck...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: proxy segfault in httpd-trunk
Date Thu, 16 May 2013 08:19:14 GMT
> Just wondering if we also have a problem with the pool
> as well... if base doesn't have a proxy, we don't have
> the subpool.

Looks like it. At least I don't see a reason why Nick's reasoning would
apply to the mutex but not to the pool.


> BTW, wondering if instead of leaking proxy_mutex we
> could set ps->mutex = proxy_mutex in mod_proxy.c when
> we merge. We could then make proxy_mutex static...?
I must admit I'm not familiar enough with the httpd modules at large to be
an expert here but to me it *feels* weird to put such a central piece of
module management outside the module's config structure. It would solve the
problem with create_config/merge_config though and it's also a bit better
performance wise (see Graham's commit). Hm, maybe it doesn't feel so weird
after all ...


> Hmmm... The other idea is to keep it as it was,
> stick pconf back in conf->pool but just always create
> a sub-pool before conf->pool is used. This *looks*
> like it removes the need for a mutex...

I thought about this as well but decided against it because I figured
creating those sub pools would be a much larger performance hit then just
having a locking mechanism in place. It'd be a different matter with sub
pools being pre-allocated, 'swapped' into place when needed, etc. This
feels like going way overboard though.


On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 5:20 AM, Jim Jagielski <jim@jagunet.com> wrote:

> Hmmm... The other idea is to keep it as it was,
> stick pconf back in conf->pool but just always create
> a sub-pool before conf->pool is used. This *looks*
> like it removes the need for a mutex...
>
> On May 15, 2013, at 7:37 PM, Jim Jagielski <jim@jaguNET.com> wrote:
>
> > Just wondering if we also have a problem with the pool
> > as well... if base doesn't have a proxy, we don't have
> > the subpool.
> >
> > BTW, wondering if instead of leaking proxy_mutex we
> > could set ps->mutex = proxy_mutex in mod_proxy.c when
> > we merge. We could then make proxy_mutex static...?
> >
> > On May 15, 2013, at 7:27 PM, Graham Leggett <minfrin@sharp.fm> wrote:
> >
> >> On 16 May 2013, at 1:25 AM, Jim Jagielski <jim@jaguNET.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Ugg. You're 100% right. We need to create a global.
> >>
> >> Here is one I made earlier: http://svn.apache.org/r1482859
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Graham
> >> --
> >>
> >
>
>

Mime
View raw message