On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 7:11 AM Eric Covener <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 7:01 AM Pluem, Ruediger, Vodafone Group > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > > > Von: Eric Covener <[email protected]> > > > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 20. Februar 2020 12:33 > > > An: Apache HTTP Server Development List <[email protected]> > > > Betreff: Re: KeepAliveTimeout vs. event issue > > > > > > > Or is it exactly the other way around? Does event close it after > > > > x s - 100 ms and hence earlier than announced? > > > > > > earlier then announced > > > > This is bad. Then we should add this back. If we keep it open a little bit > > longer (<= 1 s) it does not harm. > > I think it it as simple as: > > Index: server/mpm/event/event.c > =================================================================== > --- server/mpm/event/event.c (revision 1874247) > +++ server/mpm/event/event.c (working copy) > @@ -1218,7 +1218,7 @@ > * timeout today. With a normal client, the socket will be readable > in > * a few milliseconds anyway. > */ > - cs->queue_timestamp = apr_time_now(); > + cs->queue_timestamp = apr_time_now() + TIMEOUT_FUDGE_FACTOR; > notify_suspend(cs); > > /* Add work to pollset. */
This has the unfortunate property that under low load you see the extra 100ms every time. In the same env today you see it pretty much exact. Maybe Yann has something better.
