tomcat-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Costin Manolache <cos...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: APR/native and per socket timeouts.
Date Mon, 21 May 2012 14:26:15 GMT
My understanding is that the timeout is implemented in poll.c maintain() -
by scanning the socket list in C.

Why not doing the same thing in java - i.e. don't touch native code, have
all sockets 'long', and close whenever you need from java ?

Costin

On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 5:55 AM, Mark Thomas <markt@apache.org> wrote:

> On 20/05/2012 21:47, Mladen Turk wrote:
> > On 05/20/2012 08:37 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> >> Therefore, I intend modifying the APR/native code to support per socket
> >> time outs. I would be grateful if those of you with more C knowledge
> >> than I (which is most people on this list) could:
> >> a) tell me now if this is a crazy idea (and why)
> >> b) keep an extra close eye on any commit of mine that touches the C
> code.
> >>
> >
> > This should be easy to implement.
> > Inside native we track socket_ttl for each socket.
> > Currently when  socket is added it's set to apr_time_now()
> > and later compared with max_ttl (usually keepAliveTimeout).
> >
> > We can add new API that would add socket with timeout relative
> > to max_ttl. A bit awkward but wouldn't create backward incompatibility.
> >
> > Take a look at poll.c add function.
> > The new addt would have additional timeout parameter and
> > you would set:
> > ...
> > if (p->max_ttl > 0)
> >         p->socket_ttl[p->nelts] = apr_time_now() + J2T(timeout);
> > ...
> >
> > Now that new timeout param would actually be called as
> > Poll.add(pollset, socket, events, perSocketPollTimeout -
> keepAliveTimeout);
> > given that keepAliveTimeout was used for Poll.setTtl(keepAliveTimeout);
> >
> > So effectively socket_ttl would become 'now() - ttlOffset'
>
> Thanks for confirming I am heading in the right direction with this. I'm
> hesitant to follow exactly the path above. While it is a minimal change
> from the current code, I think it could be difficult for folks new to
> the code to figure out what is going on.
>
> I'd like to see if I can come up with a change that will be more obvious
> on first reading. I expect it will be a little more invasive than the
> change you suggested. Depending on my level of confidence, I'll either
> post a patch or commit the change when I have something concrete.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mark
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message