From: "Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange@redhat.com>
To: John Levon <levon@movementarian.org>
Cc: atse@xensource.com, xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
Subject: Re: intermittent problems with legacy xmlrpc server in 3.0.4
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 01:29:59 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20070117012959.GE8693@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070117010401.GA4503@totally.trollied.org.uk>
On Wed, Jan 17, 2007 at 01:04:01AM +0000, John Levon wrote:
> So for some reason the server is trying to process a request before xm has sent it, and the
> EWOULDBLOCK is causing the EPIPE it seems.
>
> changeset 12062:5fe8e9ebcf5c made this change:
>
> + try:
> + self.server.socket.settimeout(1.0)
> + while self.running:
> + self.server.handle_request()
>
> which places xmlrpc.sock in non-blocking mode. SocketServer.py actually
> does this on init:
So from reading that changeset, it looks as if the socket is being put
in no-blocking mode so that when XenD shuts down it doesn't wait forever
for active clients to finish. An alternate way to do this would be to
simply set all the client connection handling threads to be daemonized
threads and not bother calling join() on them at all - just rely on
the automatic thread cleanup. This means that the leader process can just
quit & any outstanding client handling threads will simply be killed
off without delay.
> def __init__(self, request, client_address, server):
> self.request = request
> self.client_address = client_address
> self.server = server
> try:
> self.setup()
> self.handle()
> self.finish()
>
> This self.handle() ends up as the recv() that craps itself when it gets
> EAGAIN. This doesn't always happen, presumably the race is between
> creating the request thread in SocketServer and xm writing the data.
>
> I've hacked up SocketServer a bit to handle EAGAIN, but this obviously
> isn't a good fix. Suggestions welcome, I'm not really familiar with all
> this server code.
Having had a cursory glance at the code, as you say, none of it is expecting
the socket to be in non-blocking mode so it easily breaks. You'd probably
see same thing if network congestion caused a data stall of > 1 second.
IMHO the sockets should be put back to blocking mode & find another way
of dealing with any possible shutdown issues.
Regards,
Dan.
--
|=- Red Hat, Engineering, Emerging Technologies, Boston. +1 978 392 2496 -=|
|=- Perl modules: http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ -=|
|=- Projects: http://freshmeat.net/~danielpb/ -=|
|=- GnuPG: 7D3B9505 F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 -=|
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-01-17 1:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-01-17 1:04 intermittent problems with legacy xmlrpc server in 3.0.4 John Levon
2007-01-17 1:29 ` Daniel P. Berrange [this message]
2007-01-18 15:55 ` Alastair Tse
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20070117012959.GE8693@redhat.com \
--to=berrange@redhat.com \
--cc=atse@xensource.com \
--cc=levon@movementarian.org \
--cc=xen-devel@lists.xensource.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.