On Dec 4, 2013, at 7:37 AM, Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Dec 3, 2013, at 10:30 PM, jpe...@apache.org wrote:
>
>> Updated Branches:
>> refs/heads/master 2b6a5f6bb -> 0f9305dc6
>>
>>
>> TS-2415: use standard continuations to release UrlRewrite objects
>>
>> UrlRewrite uses a custom continuation to release the old object
>> after it is no longer needed. We can use library code for this
>> instead. Use new_Deleter to free the old UrlRewrite object.
>> newTable = NEW(new UrlRewrite());
>> if (newTable->is_valid()) {
>> - eventProcessor.schedule_in(new UR_FreerContinuation(rewrite_table),
>> URL_REWRITE_TIMEOUT, ET_TASK);
>> + new_Deleter(rewrite_table, URL_REWRITE_TIMEOUT);
>> Debug("url_rewrite", "remap.config done reloading!");
>> ink_atomic_swap(&rewrite_table, newTable);
>> } else {
>>
>
>
> Fwiw, this new_Deleter does not have the same semantics as the old code. The
> old code would schedule the deletion on the ET_TASK thread pool, whereas
> new_Deleter runs on any of the net-threads. This could mean that we’d block a
> net-thread for some time if the remap table is sufficiently large.
>
> I don’t know if it is a real, detrimental problem, but if I recall we moved
> the remap.config reloading / management to ET_TASK because it did have a real
> problem when loading very large configs.
Oh interesting. All the config processor stuff happens on ET_CALL threads too.
The remap.config loading still happens on the ET_TASK.
> Maybe the right thing is to make new_Deleter use ET_TASK?
Yes this sounds like the right thing to do.
> If there are no task threads configured, that falls back to the old behavior?
Or make sure we always have at least 1 task thread?
J
