> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> On 16 May 2013, at 1:25 AM, Jim Jagielski <[email protected]> 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 > >> -- > >> > > > >
