On Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 08:20:32PM +0100, Oskar Sandberg wrote: > On Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 01:18:12PM -0500, Tavin Cole wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 03:46:32PM +0100, Niklas Mehner wrote: > > > I have implemented a new ThreadFactory, that only uses a fixed amount of > > > threads. With the current PThreadFactory I have problems when under > > > heavy load. > > > The factory creates more and more threads, until freenet, java or my > > > machine fail. > > > > This is because of bugs in the node that cause threads to get hung and > > never return to the thread pool, so that it is forced to create more and > > more overflow threads to satisfy the ticker. > > But the reason we implemented the "force after delay" feature was > exactly to kill the deadlocks. In many ways, the anti-deadlock pool may > be a better solution to this, and combined with the it can only be an > improvement. In general, I think that Niklas' design seems very > sensible.
Nevertheless, coding the thread pool to resist bugs in the rest of the node (and adding a lot of complication to it in the process) seems like the wrong approach in the long run. -tc > > Switching to a thread pool that doesn't create overflow threads won't > > solve this. It'll just make the node die sooner when the ticker can't > > get any more threads. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 240 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20020218/eb549de0/attachment.pgp>
