From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-lf1-f45.google.com (mail-lf1-f45.google.com [209.85.167.45]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dev.tarantool.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5044D46971A for ; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 10:08:33 +0300 (MSK) Received: by mail-lf1-f45.google.com with SMTP id f15so14975338lfl.13 for ; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 23:08:33 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 10:08:30 +0300 From: Konstantin Osipov Message-ID: <20191211070830.GA5953@atlas> References: <20191210083258.GD21413@atlas> <2c8fe897-9a9d-849d-463e-5fadff982b8c@tarantool.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2c8fe897-9a9d-849d-463e-5fadff982b8c@tarantool.org> Subject: Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH 2/2] fiber: destroy fiber.storage created by iproto List-Id: Tarantool development patches List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Vladislav Shpilevoy Cc: tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org * Vladislav Shpilevoy [19/12/11 10:01]: > On the other hand I agree, that fiber pooled loop probably should > not know anything about requests. Another option is to call > fiber_cleanup() right in iproto.cc after each request. We would need > to patch tx_process_misc(), tx_process_call(), tx_process1(), > tx_process_select(), tx_process_sql(), tx_process_join_subscribe(). > Not so many places. What do you think? This is what I suggest. Let's begin with this, then the rest of my comments will fit in their place. -- Konstantin Osipov, Moscow, Russia