From f308cc1616b1eb504368fbd7a8aac76333869e3c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Andrew Tridgell Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 11:04:01 +0000 Subject: r10920: in case of a accept() failure just failing and trying again is no good, as it is probably a resource constraint, so if we just try again we will spin (as the incoming socket will still be readable). Using a sleep(1) solves this by throtting smbd until the resource constraint goes away. if the resource constraint doesn't go away, then at least smbd won't be spinning chewing cpu (This used to be commit 7a5a9da477186b5e4fdb34ec64cc97915de4fd8e) --- source4/smbd/process_single.c | 8 ++++++++ 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) (limited to 'source4/smbd/process_single.c') diff --git a/source4/smbd/process_single.c b/source4/smbd/process_single.c index 56b074a6294..8c9dd2f7fa7 100644 --- a/source4/smbd/process_single.c +++ b/source4/smbd/process_single.c @@ -26,6 +26,7 @@ #include "lib/events/events.h" #include "dlinklist.h" #include "smb_server/smb_server.h" +#include "system/filesys.h" /* @@ -51,6 +52,13 @@ static void single_accept_connection(struct event_context *ev, status = socket_accept(sock, &sock2); if (!NT_STATUS_IS_OK(status)) { DEBUG(0,("accept_connection_single: accept: %s\n", nt_errstr(status))); + /* this looks strange, but is correct. We need to + throttle things until the system clears enough + resources to handle this new socket. If we don't + then we will spin filling the log and causing more + problems. We don't panic as this is probably a + temporary resource constraint */ + sleep(1); return; } -- cgit v1.2.1