Don't use a ThreadGroup for tracking worker threads#15
Open
bpot wants to merge 2 commits intoevan:masterfrom
Open
Don't use a ThreadGroup for tracking worker threads#15bpot wants to merge 2 commits intoevan:masterfrom
bpot wants to merge 2 commits intoevan:masterfrom
Conversation
…l believe that any threads spawned by the worker are its own.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Mongrel current uses a ThreadGroup to track its worker threads. But this has the unintended side-effect that any thread spawned by a request will inherit the group of the request thread. Thus, mongrel will think these new threads are requests and take them into account when it enforces num_process restrictions. This mostly went unnoticed for us in 1.1.3 but after upgrading 1.1.5 the num_process enforcement fix caused mongrels to start rejecting requests after we spawned a background thread pool.
I've fixed this by tracking threads in an array and then purging any completed threads whenever this array is accessed. This is not ideal, but I think any other fix would require the thread removing itself from the list of workers and thus require a mutex. Using an array seemed like the most straight-forward fix.