On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 6:08 PM Ruediger Pluem <rpl...@apache.org> wrote: > > On 9/7/21 11:34 AM, yla...@apache.org wrote: > > Author: ylavic > > Date: Tue Sep 7 09:34:09 2021 > > New Revision: 1893014 > > > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1893014&view=rev > > Log: > > mpm_event: Fix children processes possibly not stopped on graceful restart. > > > > The number of children spawned can go above active_daemons_limit due to > > exponential idle_spawn_rate growth (x 2), enforce the upper limit in > > perform_idle_server_maintenance(). PR 63169. > > > > Proposed by: Joel Self <joelself gmail.com> > > > > Added: > > httpd/httpd/trunk/changes-entries/event_maintenance_spawn_limit.txt > > Modified: > > httpd/httpd/trunk/server/mpm/event/event.c > > > > Added: httpd/httpd/trunk/changes-entries/event_maintenance_spawn_limit.txt > > URL: > > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/trunk/changes-entries/event_maintenance_spawn_limit.txt?rev=1893014&view=auto > > ============================================================================== > > --- httpd/httpd/trunk/changes-entries/event_maintenance_spawn_limit.txt > > (added) > > +++ httpd/httpd/trunk/changes-entries/event_maintenance_spawn_limit.txt Tue > > Sep 7 09:34:09 2021 > > @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@ > > + *) mpm_event: Fix children processes possibly not stopped on graceful > > + restart. PR 63169. [Joel Self <joelself gmail.com>] > > \ No newline at end of file > > > > Modified: httpd/httpd/trunk/server/mpm/event/event.c > > URL: > > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/trunk/server/mpm/event/event.c?rev=1893014&r1=1893013&r2=1893014&view=diff > > ============================================================================== > > --- httpd/httpd/trunk/server/mpm/event/event.c (original) > > +++ httpd/httpd/trunk/server/mpm/event/event.c Tue Sep 7 09:34:09 2021 > > @@ -3237,6 +3237,9 @@ static void perform_idle_server_maintena > > if (free_length > retained->idle_spawn_rate[child_bucket]) { > > free_length = retained->idle_spawn_rate[child_bucket]; > > } > > + if (free_length + active_daemons > active_daemons_limit) { > > + free_length = active_daemons_limit - active_daemons; > > Are we sure that we can't have cases where active_daemons_limit < > active_daemons and free_length gets below zero?
If free_length (signed int) gets negative we'll do nothing in the "for (i = 0; i < free_length; ...)" loop below, so I think we are safe? Cheers; Yann.
