apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Brian Pane <bp...@pacbell.net>
Subject Re: Thoughts on locks
Date Tue, 26 Jun 2001 19:25:44 GMT
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:

>On Tue, Jun 26, 2001 at 11:24:25AM -0700, Brian Pane wrote:
>>I'm all in favor of getting rid of the mutexes in the pool allocator code
>>where possible.  I think locking is inevitable, though, in order to handle
>>the allocation of new blocks for a pool--which seems to be where most
>>of the mutex lock/unlock behavior in the httpd is currently.  That's where
>>it would be nice to have a more lightweight alternative to a pthread mutex.
>Right, but most of the pools are pools for request (request_rec->pool).
>By definition, they can only live in one worker (thread, process, etc.),
>so there is no possibility of contention.  We're spending time locking 
>code that has no business being locked.
>Now, I could be misunderstanding this, but I doubt that we need to lock
>the pools in this case.
In the current apr_palloc, the lock is only around the call to new_block.
I think that's reasonable; new_block is manipulating a global free list, so
it has to be mutex-protected.

For now, I'll hack together a spin lock prototype to see if it yields any
measurable improvement in httpd speed.


View raw message