-------- In message <CABtDKm7X7niJvLYYSAnOMgZGM_eoZdNq7b6tNejRd2N8ermM=a...@mail.gmail.com> , Dridi Boukelmoune writes:
>I know this is half off-topic, but on top of not panicking on memory >exhaustion, I thought we could also "panic" a single thread when it's a >worker (regardless of the issue) when we can't serve a 5xx response. It's a workable solution when you have memory protection between your threads (which is, if you think about it, basically why it works for UNIX kernels to coredump processes. But for threads in the same address space, using non-isolated means of intercommunication (ie: userland mtx/condvar with kernel assist) as opposed to kernel mediated means of intercommunication, it invariably becomes hairy, bugprone and full of races. Thus I'm not very thrilled about this idea. >The current assert system is a bit too unforgiving for many cases. I fully agree, but still preferable to running with inconsistent data structures. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 [email protected] | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. _______________________________________________ varnish-dev mailing list [email protected] https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/mailman/listinfo/varnish-dev
