DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUGĀ·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
<http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39079>.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED ANDĀ·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.

http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39079

           Summary: thread eats 100% CPU, presumably spinning in futex
           Product: Apache httpd-2
           Version: 2.2.0
          Platform: PC
        OS/Version: Linux
            Status: NEW
          Severity: major
          Priority: P2
         Component: mod_cache
        AssignedTo: [email protected]
        ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


We run a number of reverse caching proxies. Basically mod_cache + mod_disk_cache
+ mod_proxy + mod_proxy_http, doing ProxyPass all in the worker mpm.
compiled using:
./configure --prefix=/software/apache-cache-2.2.0 --with-mpm=worker
--enable-cache --enable-mem-cache --enable-disk-cache --enable-proxy
--enable-proxy-http --enable-proxy-ajp --enable-proxy-balancer --enable-rewrite
--enable-mods-shared=all --enable-nonportable-atomics

Recently we upgrade from 2.0.X to 2.2.0
In some of the webserver instances we see processes consuming 100% CPU time.
When interrogated with ptrace, such a thread appears to be in a futex:
Process 8329 attached - interrupt to quit
futex(0xa83c9bf8, FUTEX_WAIT, 8361, NULL <unfinished ...>

The webserver does not hang. I assume because it spawns another process that
handles all new requests.
apache status shows only 2 active threads in the old process:
R.......W.......................................................
I guess that 1 thread (the one you canb see in ptrace) is halted on the futex
system call, and the other thread is spinning in the usermode part of a futex
(and hence is not visible from ptrace)

Unfortunately I cannot reproduce the bug, all I can do is wait until it happens
again on a production server.
However I've done some testing. Here are the results:
* compiling with --enable-nonportable-atomics does nor make a differerence
* using mem_cechc or disk_cache does not make a difference
* compiling with the prefork mpm DOES appear to make a difference, I haven't
seen prefork mpm's behaving like this (yet)

Also, out of the 5 instances we run, 1 instance does not appear to have this
problem (it has been running for ~3 weeks, whereas the others will show the
problem within a couple of hours). Alle instances are moderately busy with
anything between 100.000 and 10.000.000 hits per day.

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to