bufferevent_ratelim.c

Branch :

Log

Commit	Date	Message
e49e2891	2012-02-10 17:29:53	Update copyright notices to 2012
3c824bd3	2011-10-24 13:18:09	Update copyright dates to 2011.
c75341b0	2011-08-24 18:42:00	Support negative arguments to _bufferevent_decrement_(read/write)_buckets()
5b18f130	2011-08-24 16:17:05	Make rate limiting work with common_timeout logic
6d5440e8	2011-08-11 15:15:17	Fix handling of group rate limits under 64 bytes of burst The "min_share" logic, which was designed to prevent piles of extremely small writes when running up against a group rate limit, could lead to confusing behavior if you ever set a min_share less than your burst rate. If that happened, then as soon as your group rate limit was exhausted, you'd stop reading/writing, and never start again, since the amount readable/writeable would never actually hit min_share. We now cap min_share at the rate per tick. Found by George Kadianakis
598d1336	2010-10-27 22:57:53	Try to clear up more size_t vs int/long issues.
2cbb1a16	2010-10-26 10:27:29	Make rate-limits go up to SIZE_MAX/EV_SSIZE_MAX, not just INT32_MAX Someday, when networks are far faster and people frequently want a burst value greater than 2GB per tick, this will seem very forsightful indeed. For now, it breaks ABI, but not source. Fixes bug 3092096.
34d64f8a	2010-10-12 13:46:14	Fix serious bugs in per-bufferevent rate-limiting code Our old code was too zealous about deleting the refill events that would actually make connections able to read or write again after they had run out of bandwidth. Under some circumstances, this could cause a bufferevent to never actually refill one of its rate-limiting buckets. Also, the code treated setting a per-connection rate-limit on a connection that already had a group-limit as if it were changing the limit on a connection whose allocation had already run out. This patch fixes both of those problems.
9c8db0f8	2010-09-23 22:45:55	Fix all warnings in the main codebase flagged by -Wsigned-compare Remember, the code int is_less_than(int a, unsigned b) { return a < b; } is buggy, since the C integer promotion rules basically turn it into int is_less_than(int a, unsigned b) { return ((unsigned)a) < b; } and we really want something closer to int is_less_than(int a, unsigned b) { return a < 0 \|\| ((unsigned)a) < b; } . Suggested by an example from Ralph Castain
0bffe43a	2010-08-09 12:08:40	Fix a nasty dangling-event bug when using rate-limiting groups When we freed a bufferevent that was in a rate-limiting group and blocked on IO, the process of freeing it caused it to get removed from the group. But removing the bufferevent from the group made its limits get removed, which could make it get un-suspended and in turn cause its events to get re-added. Since we would then immediately _free_ the events, this would result in dangling pointers. Fixes bug 3041007.