apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Brian Pane <bp...@pacbell.net>
Subject Re: SMS usage patterns, hierarchies
Date Wed, 11 Jul 2001 01:24:23 GMT
Sander Striker wrote:

>>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).
>I want to discuss this some more to be honest.  There
>are several options we can try and I feel it is best
>to examine more than one, even though one looks like
>the way to go.  A per-CPU free list will be difficult
>to implement for reasons Justin pointed out.
>A per thread free list is a lot easier.  Actually, if
>we use an sms like "tracking" instead of "trivial" we get
>one free list.  If we then use the "threads" sms (which
>I should commit (I'll wait until Davids patch is in))
>as the parent sms of all the top level smss in each
>thread, we get a free list per thread.  But, this
>requires tweaking httpd, which right now is not really
>an option.
I agree--a per-thread free list with the tracking SMS
is a good, practical alternative.

>>But stop me if I've misinterpreted the data...
>Well, you could read it differently.  Look at images
>233 to 259, then look at 260.  Now why are all those
>destroyed individually, when one destroy, the one in
>260 could take care of them all?
Did these all result from calls to ap_destroy_sub_req?
That would explain the pattern of the graphs.


View raw message