On 06/02/2007 03:07 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > On Jun 2, 2007, at 3:57 AM, Ruediger Pluem wrote: > >> >> >> On 06/02/2007 01:44 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >>> Author: jim >>> Date: Fri Jun 1 16:44:36 2007 >>> New Revision: 543667 >>> >>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&rev=543667 >>> Log: >>> Minor nit... be consistent and unset even now :) >>> >>> Modified: >>> httpd/httpd/branches/httpd-pid-table/server/mpm/mpmt_os2/ mpmt_os2.c >>> >>> Modified: httpd/httpd/branches/httpd-pid-table/server/mpm/mpmt_os2/ >>> mpmt_os2.c >>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/branches/httpd-pid- >>> table/server/mpm/mpmt_os2/mpmt_os2.c? >>> view=diff&rev=543667&r1=543666&r2=543667 >>> ===================================================================== >>> ========= >>> --- httpd/httpd/branches/httpd-pid-table/server/mpm/mpmt_os2/ >>> mpmt_os2.c (original) >>> +++ httpd/httpd/branches/httpd-pid-table/server/mpm/mpmt_os2/ >>> mpmt_os2.c Fri Jun 1 16:44:36 2007 >>> @@ -337,6 +337,7 @@ >>> pid = ap_scoreboard_image->parent[n].pid; >>> if (ap_in_pid_table(pid)) { >>> kill(pid, is_graceful ? SIGHUP : SIGTERM); >>> + ap_unset_pid_table(pid); >> >> >> Good catch. But is this also correct in the graceful / SIGHUP case? >> Couldn't it happen that we want to sent a SIGTERM later? >> > > Could be... It's been a LONG time since I looked at this > MPM :)
Digging somewhat deeper into the code I think you are right with your patch and my worries seem to be wrong. It looks like to me that the OS/2 MPM never shrinks its process pool (like prefork and worker do) by killing idle processes that are not longer needed. It only seems to start additional ones if it runs out of enough idle processes. The killing of processes only happens when the MPM restarts / shuts down and the MPM doesn't seem to care whether the child processes *really* exit after sending the signal to them (prefork and worker seem to care). So it never deals with these pids again. Regards Rüdiger
