Jeremy Shaw wrote:
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 2:36 AM, Taru Karttunen <tar...@taruti.net> wrote:
So for sendfile, instead of threadWaitWrite we could do:
r <- timeout (60 * 10^6) threadWaitWrite
case r of
Nothing -> ... -- timed out
(Just ()) -> ... -- keep going
For sendfile, a timeout of 1 second would probably be fine. The *ONLY*
purpose of threadWaitWrite in the sendfile code is to avoid busy-waiting
on EAGAIN from the native sendfile.
What would work is, instead of using threadWaitRead (as in the code you
supplied) to simply have a 1 second timeout which causes the loop to
call the native sendfile again. Native sendfile *will* fail with an
error code if the socket has been disconnected.
With that in place "dead" threads waiting on threadWaitWrite will only
linger at most 1 second before discovering the disconnect.
Not ideal, but a lot better than the current situation.
Does that sound like the right fix to you?
[--snip--]
(Obviously, if people are using sendfile with something other than happstack,
it does not help them, but it sounds like trying to fix things in
> sendfile is misguided anyway.)
How so? As a user I expect sendfile to work and not semi-randomly block
threads indefinitely.
Cheers,
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
