Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apr.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 21:26:51 -0800
From: Justin Erenkrantz <jerenkrantz@ebuilt.com>
To: dev@apr.apache.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] time-space tradeoff (reuse tpool,
 one CV per worker thread)
Message-ID: <20011123212651.B26332@ebuilt.com>
References: <3BFE0162.4040506@pacbell.net>
 <20011123174517.1635746DFD@koj.rkbloom.net> <20011123114632.W18738@clove.org>
 <3BFEA791.4050007@pacbell.net> <20011123150137.Y18738@clove.org>
 <3BFED8D3.6010607@pacbell.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3BFED8D3.6010607@pacbell.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.22.1i

[ Moving this part of the discussion to dev@apr. ]

On Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 03:16:35PM -0800, Brian Pane wrote:
> Thanks.  Here's my patch to optimize away the mutex operations in
> pools that have been designated thread-private.  With the current
> worker code, it can eliminate the mutex ops for subrequest pool
> creation/destruction.  By combining it with your worker redesign,
> I think we may be able to eliminate the mutexes for the ptrans
> pool.

Nice idea.  However, I think it might be best to resurrect
Sander's patch which did a rewrite of the pool code (keeping
virtually the same API) but made the internal code much cleaner.  
And, it had thread-private to boot.  (The current pool code has
threads grafted on to it, so it isn't as clean.)  And, we proved
it was a performance win, too, I think.

I remember having this conversation a few months ago, but now
I think might be the time to land this puppy in the tree.  =)
Sander?

My $.02.  -- justin