apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <l...@samba-tng.org>
Subject Re: SMS usage patterns, hierarchies
Date Wed, 11 Jul 2001 14:31:50 GMT
On Tue, Jul 10, 2001 at 11:45:01AM -0700, Brian Pane wrote:
> Sander Striker wrote:
> >Cliff pointed out to me that using my homedir for this stuff might be
> >a better idea (instead of people pounding my ADSL).
> >
> >I saw some hits on my box and think that people were scared away by
> >the size of the archive (~10MB). Sorry about that. In combination with
> >the speed of my line I can imagine you didn't even try ;)
> >
> >Ok, now it can be found on www.apache.org/~striker/sms
> >
> >Sander
> >
> Thanks.  If I'm reading the graphs right, they show
> that destruction of a leaf SMS with siblings is much
> more common than destruction or reset of a non-leaf
> SMS with children.  That seems to reinforce the
> conclusion I drew from gprof data: we could get better
> performance by allocating blocks for a child from
> something that isn't the direct parent (like a per-CPU
> free list, based on Dean's recommendation).


could someone explain to me why there are two stacks
of apr_sms_trivial, such that you get the double
list-walk in the first place?

please? :)

is there a good reason why apr_sms_trivial is not
using apr_sms_general to obtain its memory?

surely, to get blocks for a child directly from
malloc [via apr_sms_general] would be better than
going to another apr_sms_trivial, which, as the
stats show, does yet another list-walk?

also, would someone like to write an apr_sms_trivial_using_hashchains?

the idea here would be that the size of the memory block
is used as a hash-lookup into the currently-available free chain,
instead of list-walking.

surely, that saves time, yes?

anyone care to refute this hypothesis and proposal?

all best,


View raw message