apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Justin Erenkrantz <jerenkra...@ebuilt.com>
Subject Re: Pool allocation bottlenecks Re: Tag 2.0.21 was Re: daedalus is back on 2.0.21-dev
Date Thu, 19 Jul 2001 20:35:17 GMT
[ Dropping new-httpd ]

> For a test using server-parsed requests, the pattern is very different:
>                 0.00    0.00   87710/14587902     apr_file_read [9]
>                 0.00    0.00 3000048/14587902     apr_pool_destroy 
> <cycle 5> [22]
>                 0.00    0.00 3000074/14587902     apr_pool_sub_make [31]
>                 0.00    0.00 4000049/14587902     free_blocks [28]
>                 0.00    0.00 4500021/14587902     apr_palloc [27]
> [13]    25.0    0.00    0.01 14587902         apr_lock_acquire [13]

The pool_destroy and sub_make code shouldn't need to acquire a lock to
do destruction - rather they may be present, but the scope of the
locks will now be thread-local - so there should be very little (if
any) contention on the locks.  At least that's the intention.  
-- justin


Mime
View raw message