apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Brian Pane <brian.p...@cnet.com>
Subject Re: pools + ap_pfree
Date Fri, 01 Mar 2002 06:20:15 GMT
In principle, I like this idea.  It would make pools (and, consequently,
APR) usable in a lot more programs.

In practice, there's at least one problem that I anticipate.  In order
to keep the pool implementation usable in the httpd, we can't slow down
the fast-path code in apr_palloc() at all.  I.e., the performance of
the httpd depends very heavily on the fact that, when you use apr_palloc()
to allocate from a pool that has enough free memory to satisfy the request
without an additional block alloc, the path through the function is really
damn fast.  In the current code, the work required of apr_palloc() in the
common case is basically just one integer comparison and a couple of
addition operations.  If we have to add even more more if-statement to
the code to support ap_pfree(), then the run time of apr_palloc() will
nearly double.

We saw this with the SMS allocators last year.  SMS had a great design:
a family of interchangeable allocators with different memory management
implementations, and an single, abstract interface to all of them so that
one could easily plug in the right type of allocator for a given app.
The problem was that the httpd got measurably slower when the SMS version
of the simple pool allocator was used in place of the original apr_pool
code.  The reason was that the single extra function call indirection on
each apr_palloc() (to support the polymorphic interface) was enough to
negatively impact the performance.

So...in order to be a general-purpose replacement for the current pool
code, a pool implementation with apr_pfree() support would need to run
also implement apr_palloc() without any performance penalty (at least
for apps that don't need to take advantage of apr_pfree()).  If your
version of the pool code can handle that, though, then it might be a
great addition to APR.

--Brian


Emery Berger wrote:

>Hi everyone,
>
>Not sure if this is the right place for this, but here goes.
>
>I've recently developed an extended version of pools (called "reaps")
>that provides the same semantics but also allows individual objects to
>be freed and reused. That is, I add ap_pfree and ap_prealloc to the API.
>If you free an object with ap_pfree, it can be reused by a subsequent
>ap_palloc. If you don't ever use ap_pfree, it's still lightning fast and
>acts like the pools we all know and love :). If you do use ap_pfree,
>freed objects are managed using an algorithm based on Doug Lea's
>allocator, widely considered to be one of the most memory-efficient and
>fastest.
>
>I see a couple of advantages to this approach:
>
>(1) It should simplify module programming; existing code that uses
>malloc/free can just use ap_palloc(r->pool)/ap_pfree(r->pool) {say, by
>using a #define} and everything will work fine, rather than causing
>enormous memory consumption.
>
>(2) Using reaps allows a broader range of memory usage patterns, e.g.
>producer-consumer pairs (producer allocs, consumer frees), which don't
>fit into the nested subpool paradigm.
>
>So what are your thoughts? One notion I'm also working on is mixing
>reaps into Hoard, my scalable general-purpose memory allocator (see
>www.hoard.org). But I'm very interested in getting feedback on what the
>Apache crowd thinks about using reaps.
> 
>Thanks,
>-- Emery
>
>--
>Emery Berger
>Dept. of Computer Science
>The University of Texas at Austin
>www.cs.utexas.edu/users/emery
>
>




Mime
View raw message