apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <...@jaguNET.com>
Subject Re: Poor performance with new apr_pool
Date Fri, 27 Mar 2009 12:58:10 GMT

On Mar 26, 2009, at 11:24 AM, Joe Orton wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 03:10:56PM +0100, Mladen Turk wrote:
>> What's the point?
>
> The null hypothesis is: modern malloc implementations do exactly the
> same optimisation work (e.g. maintaining freelists) that we  
> duplicate in
> APR pools.  By avoiding that duplication, and relying on malloc
> optimisation, we might get better/equivalent performance whilst  
> reducing
> the complexity of APR.
>
> So, we're testing that hypothesis.  If it's shown to be false, then,  
> we
> revert back to the old allocator.  That doesn't mean it's not worth
> trying.
>
> Also, I think it would be more useful to benchmark something like
> Subversion's "make check", or an httpd load test.
>
>

+1


Mime
View raw message