On 02/20/2020 01:11 PM, Eric Covener wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 7:01 AM Pluem, Ruediger, Vodafone Group
> <ruediger.pl...@vodafone.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>>> Von: Eric Covener <cove...@gmail.com>
>>> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 20. Februar 2020 12:33
>>> An: Apache HTTP Server Development List <dev@httpd.apache.org>
>>> Betreff: Re: KeepAliveTimeout vs. event issue
>>>
>>>> Or is it exactly the other way around? Does event close it after
>>>> x s - 100 ms and hence earlier than announced?
>>>
>>> earlier then announced
>>
>> This is bad. Then we should add this back. If we keep it open a little bit
>> longer (<= 1 s) it does not harm.
>
> I think it it as simple as:
>
> Index: server/mpm/event/event.c
> ===================================================================
> --- server/mpm/event/event.c (revision 1874247)
> +++ server/mpm/event/event.c (working copy)
> @@ -1218,7 +1218,7 @@
> * timeout today. With a normal client, the socket will be readable
> in
> * a few milliseconds anyway.
> */
> - cs->queue_timestamp = apr_time_now();
> + cs->queue_timestamp = apr_time_now() + TIMEOUT_FUDGE_FACTOR;
> notify_suspend(cs);
>
> /* Add work to pollset. */
>
That looks like it could work. Have you tested? Any regressions?
Regards
Rüdiger
>
