On Nov 22, 2013, at 3:24 PM, Jeff Trawick <traw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: > Note, the only think changed in event now (via > https://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1542560) > is that event *checks* that atomics work as required for > event... if the check fails, it means that event has > been "broken" on that system, assuming it ever hit > blocked idlers, for a *long* time... > > Got it... fdqueue.c is asking for trouble... > Yeah. > I'm using atomic/unix/ia32.c with icc too. > > Need to compare generated code... I hate stuff like "int foo() { unsigned > char x; ... return x; }" > > > > You should be seeing it in trunk as well... > > > On Nov 22, 2013, at 2:43 PM, Jeff Trawick <traw...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: > > > > On Nov 22, 2013, at 2:22 PM, Jeff Trawick <traw...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 6:00 AM, Ruediger Pluem <rpl...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > j...@apache.org wrote: > > > > + i = apr_atomic_dec32(&foo); > > > > + if (i >= 0) { > > > > > > Why can we expect i < 0? apr_atomic_dec32 returns 0 if the dec causes foo > > > to become zero and it returns non zero > > > otherwise. Shouldn't this behavior the same across all platforms? And if > > > not should that be fixed in APR? > > > > > > icc (Intel) builds of httpd 2.4.7 event MPM (with apr-1.5.0) bomb here. > > > > > > --enable-nonportable-atomics is specified for apr, though I haven't > > > checked what that does with icc. > > > > > > > As noted back with the orig update, this test is due to the > > fdqueue code in the new event: > > > > apr_status_t ap_queue_info_set_idle(fd_queue_info_t * queue_info, > > apr_pool_t * pool_to_recycle) > > { > > apr_status_t rv; > > int prev_idlers; > > > > ap_push_pool(queue_info, pool_to_recycle); > > > > /* Atomically increment the count of idle workers */ > > /* > > * TODO: The atomics expect unsigned whereas we're using signed. > > * Need to double check that they work as expected or else > > * rework how we determine blocked. > > * UPDATE: Correct operation is performed during open_logs() > > */ > > prev_idlers = apr_atomic_inc32((apr_uint32_t *)&(queue_info->idlers)); > > > > /* If other threads are waiting on a worker, wake one up */ > > if (prev_idlers < 0) { > > > > > > See the comments ("The atomics expect unsigned whereas...") for > > the reason, etc. > > > > When you say "icc (Intel) builds of httpd 2.4.7 event MPM (with apr-1.5.0) > > bomb here." > > do you mean that you get the 'atomics not working as expected' error > > (and the internal server error) or that it core dumps? > > > > > > "atomics not working as expected" > > > > Let me see what code is used... > > > > -- > > Born in Roswell... married an alien... > > http://emptyhammock.com/ > > > > > -- > Born in Roswell... married an alien... > http://emptyhammock.com/
