Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:5518 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 6057 invoked by uid 1010); 18 Nov 2003 12:32:32 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 6014 invoked from network); 18 Nov 2003 12:32:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.zend.com) (192.117.235.230) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 18 Nov 2003 12:32:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 16652 invoked from network); 18 Nov 2003 12:32:24 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO zeev-laptop.zend.com) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 18 Nov 2003 12:32:24 -0000 Reply-To: zeev@zend.com Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20031118143010.06d65c58@localhost> X-Sender: zeev@localhost X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 14:32:22 +0200 To: Michael Sisolak Cc: internals@lists.php.net,rrichards@ctindustries.net In-Reply-To: <20031118040658.91311.qmail@web13407.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: ZTS issues From: zeev@zend.com (Zeev Suraski) References: <20031118040658.91311.qmail@web13407.mail.yahoo.com> At 06:06 18/11/2003, Michael Sisolak wrote: > > I have been looking at the IIS isapi issues and came up with the > > following patch: > > > > http://www.ctindustries.net/patches/zts-php5.diff.txt > >Rob, > >I've done some work in the past on ISAPI threading issues (although I >by no means claim to understand how all the ZTS stuff works). Can you >explain why you added the calls to ts_free_thread() after the >DLL_PROCESS_ATTACH and then each call to HttpExtensionProc()? In both >cases the actual thread under IIS does continue to exist and can be >called on again when a new HTTP request arrives at the server. It >would appear to me that this change would be causes PHP to have to >reinitialize with each request. Is there a specific issue that you >were able to fix with this change? Same questions here... The extra calls to ts_free_thread() seem bogus. Not sure yet about the other changes although they probably make more sense - I never made too much effort to ensure that the cleanup of a thread is very complete... Zeev