Re: [PATCH] Add worker_exec configuration option V2

[Eric Wong <e@80x24.org>]

Jeremy Evans <code@jeremyevans.net> wrote:
> On 03/10 09:19, Eric Wong wrote:
> > tests, later, or you can.  I also had some FreeBSD test fixes
> > (which might apply to OpenBSD) on a VM somewhere which I'll Cc:
> > you on: there was also just SO_KEEPALIVE fix I posted:
> > 
> >   https://bogomips.org/unicorn-public/20170310203431.28067-1-e@80x24.org/raw
> 
> The C test code also returns 8 on OpenBSD, FWIW.  I'm happy to test any
> test fixes on OpenBSD, just let me know.

Thanks. I'll be happy to help fix any OpenBSD failures you see
from "gmake check"  I don't think the accept_filter fixes apply
to OpenBSD, but I guess the expr(1) fix did.

Thank you.

Same goes for NetBSD, DragonflyBSD or any other completely
Free/Open Source OSes anybody else here uses.

> > Jeremy Evans <code@jeremyevans.net> wrote:
> > > -      if pid = fork
> > > -        @workers[pid] = worker
> > > -        worker.atfork_parent
> > > +
> > > +      pid = if @worker_exec
> > > +        worker_spawn(worker)
> > >        else
> > > -        after_fork_internal
> > > -        worker_loop(worker)
> > > -        exit
> > > +        fork do
> > > +          after_fork_internal
> > > +          worker_loop(worker)
> > > +          exit
> > > +        end
> > 
> > I prefer to avoid the block with fork.  The block deepens the
> > stack for the running app, so it can affect GC efficiency.
> > 
> > Can be fixed in a separate patch...
> 
> That makes sense.  If you would like me to send a separate patch to fix
> it, I can do that.

Yes, please.

Not sure if we should automate the stack depth test...
I resisted it in the past since it might be too fragile
w.r.t changes to Ruby (even using "unicorn" via the
RubyGems-generated wrapper deepens it by 2).

Thanks again.