httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel Ruggeri <DRugg...@primary.net>
Subject Re: UDS Patch
Date Tue, 19 Nov 2013 00:37:18 GMT
On 11/18/2013 3:38 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Can you retry with this applied:
>
> 	https://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1543174

Definitely. I'll report back tomorrow so long as the universe wills
it... but one last note....

I failed to mention in my original notes that there were two hunks that
didn't apply cleanly to 2.4.6 - these appear to be from this change:
https://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/modules/proxy/proxy_util.c?r1=1511313&r2=1511312&pathrev=1511313
... which is in the neighborhood of what you adjusted in r1543174... but
doesn't appear to conflict directly.

I'm thinking I should also apply r1511313 to 2.4.6 as a prereq to
r1543174 in order to remove ambiguity... I'm frankly not sure if the
machine was performing DNS lookups during the test or not (and I have
only given this a cursory review), but that would *definitely* account
for a measurable slowdown.

The context of what was rejected:
> --- modules/proxy/proxy_util.c
> +++ modules/proxy/proxy_util.c
> @@ -2228,7 +2324,8 @@
>              conn->port = uri->port;
>          }
>          socket_cleanup(conn);
> -        if (!worker->s->is_address_reusable || worker->s->disablereuse)
{
> +        if (!(*worker->s->uds_path) &&
> +            (!worker->s->is_address_reusable ||
> worker->s->disablereuse)) {
>              /*
>               * Only do a lookup if we should not reuse the backend
> address.
>               * Otherwise we will look it up once for the worker.
> @@ -2239,7 +2336,7 @@
>                                          conn->pool);
>          }
>      }
> -    if (worker->s->is_address_reusable && !worker->s->disablereuse)
{
> +    if (!(*worker->s->uds_path) && worker->s->is_address_reusable
&&
> !worker->s->disablereuse) {
>          /*
>           * Looking up the backend address for the worker only makes
> sense if
>           * we can reuse the address.

I'll have to see what the delta with both patches applied turns out to be...

--
Daniel Ruggeri


Mime
View raw message