On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 3:15 PM, Yann Ylavic <[email protected]> wrote: > Ah ok, so you did not reproduced this with vanilla 2.4.x, right?
Right, I was on trunk and had just assumed this was backported (I knew the sf stuff was). > > BTW, I had issues while testing both sf's changes (now in 2.4.x), the > wakeup ones and REUSEPORT altogether, with heavy requests/gracefuls > scenario. Interesting. I think my very simple case is more the opposite -- low activity in the process during shutdown that is kind of degenerate.
