apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Brian Pane <bri...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Earth to APR????
Date Tue, 16 Jul 2002 06:23:06 GMT
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:

> At 06:36 PM 7/15/2002, David Reid wrote:
>
>> Can we all come down off the ceiling for a bit and get our feet back 
>> on the
>> ground?
>>
>> I can't help but wonder why we are making this whole thing so 
>> complicated
>> when people have been using computers and libraries using time quite 
>> happily
>> for a number of years without getting as involved as this has gotten. 
>> But
>> then maybe I've borrowed some of Cliff's crack?
>>
>> BTW, this is getting embarrassing to watch - please can we bring this 
>> to a
>> head somehow?
>
>
> Would my unequivocal veto of any change to apr_time_t help? 


Based on the data that we have so far, it wouldn't help.
The current apr_time_t implementation isn't adequate for
use in the httpd, based on the performance profile data
that shows the 64-bit divisions to be a bottleneck.

It would be nice to say, "no problem, we'll just extract
the seconds right after we look up the request_time, and
we'll use the seconds value instead of the apr_time_t
for everything after that."  But that won't fix the
problem.  We deal with multiple timestamps in a typical
request, not just r->request_time, and they all incur
the 64-bit division costs.  (For example, we need to
format the mtime of the delivered file for use in the
last-modified header.  APR does a 64-bit multiplication
to pack the time into an apr_time_t, and the httpd then
has to do a 64-bit division to unpack the seconds field.)

--Brian



Mime
View raw message