At 11:02 AM 6/5/2002, FirstBill wrote:
> > Also, I considered first using a flag in the apr_socket_t structure,
but my
> > problem is that there is already one: 'disconnected'. I would use this
> > flag, but after many review of the code, I still don't know the
utility of
> > this flag.
Has to do with a performance tweak on Windows. AcceptEx() accepts as
arguments two
sockets, the listener and an unconnected accept socket. Creating a new
accept socket (with
a call to socket()) is very expensive on Windows (the call has to
percolate through many
layers of service providers each deciding if they should handle the call).
Some of the
Win32 socket calls enable you to recycle the accept socket (TransmitFile
for instance.).
If you tell TransmitFile to disconnect the accept socket, it can be reused
on the AcceptEx
call and this is good for a double digit performance boost serving
non-keepalive requests.
Check out mpm_winnt.c and apr_sendfile() on Windows to see how this flag
is used.
Yes But.
But why does that affect APR? We must support socket applications
other than Apache with apr, with no need to grok the internals of what
should be private structures.
If we have broken APR to support mpm_winnt's AcceptEx model, then
APR is broken. If you need to add extra flags to share the apr code with
the mpm, feel free, but we need a compliant APR sockets architecture.
We currently fail most of the network_io test suite. I am happy to commit
any patches that I can verify will improve our Win32 compliance with apr's
test suite. Patch authors, *please* indicate that your patch has already
passed the test suite when posting. If it requires several patches, please
post them separately and indicate which other patches are required.
And if our tests themselves are broken, patches there too are welcome :-)
Bill
