On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 6:15 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:
> Author: elukey
> Date: Sun Jul 16 16:15:28 2017
> New Revision: 1802077
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1802077&view=rev
> Log:
> Propose backport of r1802040
[]
>
> + *) mod_proxy_fcgi: Add the support for mod_proxy's flushpackets and
> flushwait params
> + trunk patch: http://svn.apache.org/r1802040
> + 2.4.x patch: trunk works (modulo CHANGES)
> + +1: elukey
Not introduced by your change, but about "flushwait" in general: any
reason why a value of zero defaults to PROXY_FLUSH_WAIT (10ms)?
I think it'd be interesting to let flushwait=0 be a real zero timeout
(i.e. non-blocking poll() which, on some systems, is likely a more
efficient syscall than with the current minimal timeout of 1us).
So how about:
Index: modules/proxy/mod_proxy.c
===================================================================
--- modules/proxy/mod_proxy.c (revision 1802058)
+++ modules/proxy/mod_proxy.c (working copy)
@@ -277,10 +277,7 @@ static const char *set_worker_param(apr_pool_t *p,
if (timeout > 1000000 || timeout < 0) {
return "flushwait must be <= 1s, or 0 for system default
of 10 millseconds.";
}
- if (timeout == 0)
- worker->s->flush_wait = PROXY_FLUSH_WAIT;
- else
- worker->s->flush_wait = timeout;
+ worker->s->flush_wait = timeout;
}
else if (!strcasecmp(key, "ping")) {
/* Ping/Pong timeout in given unit (default is second).
?
PROXY_FLUSH_WAIT would still be the default when no "flushwait=" is
used (both with flushpackets=on|auto, since this is what we initialize
flush_wait with by default), but "flushwait=0" would work as
expected/optimally IMHO.
It seems that "flushwait=0" is not documented anyway, although the
real question is: is it used with the current behaviour expected
(which looks unlikely to me)?
Regards,
Yann.
