Unblock the accept thread on shutdown #120
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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
|
This sounds good to me! Looks like there are merge conflicts though |
moises-silva
force-pushed
the
feature/shutdown-break-accept
branch
from
6992c74
to
a7a8c6f
Compare
| // Connect briefly to ourselves to unblock the accept thread | ||
| let maybe_stream = TcpStream::connect(self.listening_addr); | ||
| if let Ok(stream) = maybe_stream { | ||
| stream.shutdown(Shutdown::Both); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This can be let _ = stream.shutdown(Shutdown::Both);, then we can get rid of #[allow(unused_must_use)]
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ah! right, thanks, much better. Done.
moises-silva
force-pushed
the
feature/shutdown-break-accept
branch
from
a7a8c6f
to
cde7981
Compare
|
@frewsxcv ok rebased with master and addressed your comment, let me know if there's anything else to be done. Thanks. |
|
Thanks! @aelita-mergebot r+ |
|
😱 Internal error: no commit found for PR |
|
@aelita-mergebot r+ |
ghost
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 21, 2016
Merge #120 a=@moises-silva r=@frewsxcv ________________________________________________________________________ I'd like to find a better way, but, this works and is not completely awful, is it? :) If this is not acceptable I'd like to initiate a discussion on ideas on how to handle shutdown correctly. Currently if tiny-http is used in a loadable module (I am using it inside a project that can load/unload modules from an interactive command line a system administrator controls), when the server goes out of scope the socket lingers because the thread never terminates unless there's a new tcp connection received (accept is a blocking call). An alternative to this would be to put the socket in non-blocking mode and then somehow poll() or select() on it with a timeout to check every sec for the shutdown flag (close trigger bool). I may be wrong, but I don't see many downsides to this implementation. The Drop() call *could* hang for a bit on unusual situations like the server being inaccessible to itself (e.g 127 -> 127 firewall blocking or whatever), but the connection will timeout and move on. Most cases are better off with this as far as I can tell. Thoughts?
ghost
merged commit
This pull request was closed.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
I'd like to find a better way, but, this works and is not completely awful, is it? :)
If this is not acceptable I'd like to initiate a discussion on ideas on how to handle shutdown correctly. Currently if tiny-http is used in a loadable module (I am using it inside a project that can load/unload modules from an interactive command line a system administrator controls), when the server goes out of scope the socket lingers because the thread never terminates unless there's a new tcp connection received (accept is a blocking call).
An alternative to this would be to put the socket in non-blocking mode and then somehow poll() or select() on it with a timeout to check every sec for the shutdown flag (close trigger bool).
I may be wrong, but I don't see many downsides to this implementation. The Drop() call could hang for a bit on unusual situations like the server being inaccessible to itself (e.g 127 -> 127 firewall blocking or whatever), but the connection will timeout and move on. Most cases are better off with this as far as I can tell.
Thoughts?