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: cvs commit: apr-util/buckets apr_brigade.c
Date Mon, 30 Sep 2002 01:55:27 GMT
On Sun, 2002-09-29 at 17:19, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 29, 2002 at 01:05:38AM -0000, brianp@apache.org wrote:
> > brianp      2002/09/28 18:05:38
> > 
> >   Modified:    buckets  apr_brigade.c
> >   Log:
> >   Rewrite of apr_brigade_writev().  It's now more efficient for
> >   both large and small inputs: zero-copy for data larger than 8KB,
> >   fewer operations (and fewer branches) per for-loop iteration
> >   for the <= 8KB case.
> Cool!
> I presume you found the "count the length up front" to have no impact in the
> short case? Thus, going ahead and doing the count and then the switch to
> transient buckets?

Right, counting the length up front added some overhead, but it also
eliminated the need for a lot of conditional and arithmetic operations
per iteration of the main copy loop, so the change basically paid for

> One thing I just realized, though: if there is no flush function, then a
> transient could be a problem. I just double-checked apr_brigade_write() and
> it switches over to HEAP buckets for that case. Should _writev follow the
> same pattern?

You mean, in case the caller then deletes the underlying storage for the
strings in the iovec?  Yes, in that case we should use heap buckets.
I'll make a change for this.  Both the _writev and the _write functions
really need a warning in the documentation: "not guaranteed to be zero
copy, so build your own buckets if you're trying to pass very large
amounts of data."


View raw message