On Mon, Jul 16, 2001 at 12:46:31AM +0200, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote: > > In order to provide a win against the current pool code in a threaded > > MPM, we *need* to have thread-specific SMS that have no locks or > > association to anything other than a simple unlocked (from APR's > > perspective) malloc/free (aka std) SMS. -- justin > > okay. > > well... uhmmm... this is going to sound odd. i'm not even sure > if it will help, because i am a bit out of my depth in understanding > the problem. > > how about a 'pass-through' sms for threads?
I'm not sure I'm following you. The thread SMS never needs locks. Sander was under the assumption that the parent of a thread can clean up a thread. That isn't supported with POSIX pthreads (cleanly). Apparently, Win32 has some support for this. This lack basically kills off the parent/child relationship between SMSes across threads. pthread_cancel() gets us into all sorts of problems we don't want to deal with. It has been discussed years ago between Ryan, Dean and Manoj - see around 08-1999 - "First in a long line of APR related patches". And, it isn't guaranteed to work, either (mutex acquires are *not* interruptable). In that same thread, Ryan also brings up a precursor to SMS. Rather interesting thread, really. (See www.apachelabs.org if you don't have a favorite new-httpd archive.) Unless you have a clean way of killing off a thread from a parent, thread-based SMS must be directly parented from a basic non-locking SMS (like std SMS). I'm open to any creative suggestions that work. I'm just not aware of any that work. -- justin
