On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 2:19 PM, Eric Covener <cove...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 8:23 AM, <s...@apache.org> wrote: > > Author: sf > > Date: Sun Jun 19 12:23:42 2011 > > New Revision: 1137358 > > > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1137358&view=rev > > Log: > > Some improvements for handling of many connections for MPM event: > > > > - Process lingering close asynchronously instead of tying up worker > threads > > (based on patch by Jeff Trawick). > > > > > + /* socket is already in non-blocking state */ > > + do { > > + nbytes = sizeof(dummybuf); > > + rv = apr_socket_recv(csd, dummybuf, &nbytes); > > + } while (rv == APR_SUCCESS); > > + > > + if (!APR_STATUS_IS_EOF(rv)) { > > + return; > > + } > > + > > + rv = apr_pollset_remove(event_pollset, pfd); > > + AP_DEBUG_ASSERT(rv == APR_SUCCESS); > > I was looking at an issue in this area, it seems like the > corresponding code in ap_lingering_close is not so picky about > apr_socket_recv return code. It seems like we could continually get > ECONNABORTED/ECONNRESET back and not take the socket out of the ring > until the timeout elapses. > > I'm wondering if the test should be APR_STATUS_IS_EAGAIN(), and > anything else that isn't success means we no longer need to linger? > Sounds right to me... try to receive, get a) APR_SUCCESS -- repeat b) APR_EAGAIN -- wait for another event on the socket to be signaled c) anything else, including APR timeout -- non-recoverable, ignored -- Born in Roswell... married an alien... http://emptyhammock.com/
