Yes, but the updated field is used differently for the health check workers and the "real" workers.
> On Aug 24, 2018, at 12:21 PM, Eric Covener <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 12:13 PM Christophe JAILLET > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Le 24/08/2018 à 17:56, Christophe JAILLET a écrit : >>> Le 24/08/2018 à 16:40, Jim Jagielski a écrit : >>>> I was wondering if someone wanted to provide a sanity check >>>> on the above PR and what's "expected" by the health check code. >>>> >>>> It would be very easy to adjust so that hcinterval was not >>>> the time between successive checks but the interval between >>>> the end of one and the start of another, but I'm not sure that >>>> is as useful. In other words, I think the current behavior >>>> is right (but think the docs need to be updated), but am >>>> willing to have my mind changed :) >>>> >>> Hi Jim, >>> >>> the current behavior is also what I would expect. >>> If I configure a check every 10s, I would expect 6 checks each minute, >>> even if the test itself takes time to perform. >>> >>> >>> >>> Not related, but is there any use for 'hc_pre_config()'? >>> We already have: >>> static int tpsize = HC_THREADPOOL_SIZE; >>> >>> Having both looks redundant. >>> >>> CJ >>> >>> >> but shouldn't we >> worker->s->update = now; >> when the check is started (in hc_watchdog_callback()) instead of when it >> is funished (at the end of hc_check())? > > Looks like s->updated is not used elsewhere in HC but is used > elsewhere in proxy modules and is in the API. > I don't know if that calls for a 2nd timestamp or a just a bit for > when checks are in progress. Could be useful in > the future to keep track of the addl information.
