Both patches applied, thanks guys!
Olivier, I have a suggestion for this one :
On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 07:17:07PM +0200, Olivier Houchard wrote:
> From 90fc92f777772c6b47d88769bb73680702d7b8e6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Olivier Houchard <[email protected]>
> Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2018 19:03:02 +0200
> Subject: [PATCH 1/2] BUG/MEDIUM: tasks: Don't insert in the global rqueue if
> nbthread == 1
>
> Make sure we don't insert a task in the global run queue if nbthread == 1,
> as, as an optimisation, we avoid reading from it if nbthread == 1.
> ---
> src/task.c | 3 ++-
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/src/task.c b/src/task.c
> index de097baf7..e357bc169 100644
> --- a/src/task.c
> +++ b/src/task.c
> @@ -395,7 +395,8 @@ void process_runnable_tasks()
> state = HA_ATOMIC_AND(&t->state, ~TASK_RUNNING);
> if (state)
> #ifdef USE_THREAD
> - __task_wakeup(t, (t->thread_mask == tid_bit) ?
> + __task_wakeup(t, (t->thread_mask == tid_bit ||
> + global.nbthread == 1) ?
> &rqueue_local[tid] : &rqueue);
> #else
I'm pretty sure we'll get caught by this sort of stuff in the future
again. I think it would be safer to proceed like this :
__task_wakeup(t, ((t->thread_mask & all_threads_mask) == tid_bit)
It should always be valid regardless of the number of threads. The same
could be done in task_wakeup().
I suspect we may have a similar issue with the fd cache applied to listeners
here :
static inline void updt_fd_polling(const int fd)
{
if (fdtab[fd].thread_mask == tid_bit) {
unsigned int oldupdt;
/* note: we don't have a test-and-set yet in hathreads */
In this case the thread_mask might be larger than all_threads_mask and
we might fail this test. Or we may see that when threads exit and the
threads mask changes.
Just my two cents, both patches were applied anyway.
Willy
