On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 12:47 PM Stefan Eissing via dev
<dev@httpd.apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Am 27.05.2024 um 14:08 schrieb Yann Ylavic <ylavic....@gmail.com>:
> >
> > Per our discussion the other day, if you want to avoid c1 connections
> > to be killed by mpm_event on high load in this case, I think you can
> > do this here:
> >
> > Index: modules/http2/h2_c1.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- modules/http2/h2_c1.c    (revision 1918003)
> > +++ modules/http2/h2_c1.c    (working copy)
> > @@ -147,6 +147,7 @@ apr_status_t h2_c1_run(conn_rec *c)
> >              && mpm_state != AP_MPMQ_STOPPING);
> >
> >     if (c->cs) {
> > +        c->clogging_input_filters = 0;
> >         switch (conn_ctx->session->state) {
> >             case H2_SESSION_ST_INIT:
> >             case H2_SESSION_ST_IDLE:
> > @@ -159,6 +160,7 @@ apr_status_t h2_c1_run(conn_rec *c)
> >                      * See PR 63534.
> >                      */
> >                     c->cs->sense = CONN_SENSE_WANT_READ;
> > +                    c->clogging_input_filters = 1;
> >                 03465}
> >                 break;
> >             case H2_SESSION_ST_CLEANUP:
> > --
> >
> > c->clogging_input_filters = 1 will tell the MPM to always call
> > process_connection() hooks after the WRITE_COMPLETION state did the
> > poll(), rather than entering the (killable) keepalive state.
> >
> > Looks like the correct workaround with current mpm_event..
>
> Just so I get this right. It will return to processing after the
> write is done or after a POLLIN happened? In the first case, it
> will not have really a positive effect on worker allocations,
> seems to me.

Yes, it will return to processing after POLLIN happens thanks to
CONN_SENSE_WANT_READ, even if there are pending output data.
But it's a really convoluted handling of POLLIN/POLLOUT in mpm_event,
with the need of that obscure c->clogging_input_filters..
So I just created https://github.com/apache/httpd/pull/448 to do that
better (and it includes the changes to h2_c1_run() too).
The plan could be to merge that to trunk and include it in your
backport proposal (if it works for you)?


Regards;
Yann.

Reply via email to