On Wed, 2008-03-19 at 22:39 -0600, Alex Rousskov wrote: > I need to go over that code once again, especially if 1 second change > breaks things again. I am for your change to HEAD because it might > expose the unresolved bug and prompt me to polish that code > further :-).
Thats the idea ;-) > The change should _not_ be backported to v3.0 though. Agreed. > Once this is committed, we could close related "Squid runs too hot" bug > reports, with a risk of having to reopen them. yep. > BTW, is there any reason for a 1 second timeout other than to give Squid > an opportunity to notice signals (on some platforms some signals do not > interrupt poll/select)? If that is the only reason, should we increase > the timeout further? If that is not the only reason, the knowledge of > other implicit dependencies may help me to polish the code further. None that I know of. But it probably ends up close to 1 second anyway from the constant churn of background events for store maintenance etc. 1 second is however considered sufficient for resonably efficient CPU power savings. Regards Henrik
