apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <...@jaguNET.com>
Subject Re: time caching in util_time.c and mod_log_config.c
Date Wed, 04 Dec 2013 18:25:28 GMT
+1
On Dec 4, 2013, at 11:19 AM, Daniel Lescohier <daniel.lescohier@cbsi.com> wrote:

> So it sounds like I should go ahead and work on an implementation of the time caching
using apr_atomic_cas32 and apr_atomic_dec32.  This won't be an issue for RHEL/CentOS/etc.,
because they're using old versions of httpd.  We can put something in the release notes saying
that for 32-bit i486, i586, i686 builds, you should build APR with --enable-nonportable-atomics,
for distro maintainers info when they package the new version.
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 7:47 AM, Jim Jagielski <jim@jagunet.com> wrote:
> Adding APR dev list:
> 
> IMO, httpd should expect APR to "do the right thing". If APR
> isn't doing that, then it's an APR bug and needs to be fixed/
> addressed within APR.
> 
> All this implies that the atomics code in APR needs a serious
> review and update.
> 
> We should also look into leveraging what we can from stdcxx
> (https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/stdcxx/trunk/src) as well
> as OPA (https://trac.mcs.anl.gov/projects/openpa/wiki/FAQ).
> 
> Also, IMO, the default should be non-portable
> atomics.
> 
> On Dec 3, 2013, at 7:41 PM, Daniel Lescohier <daniel.lescohier@cbsi.com> wrote:
> 
> > So I think we should reach a consensus on what approach to take.  My goal was to
implement an algorithm that is correct, with code that is easy to maintain.  I think using
the apr_atomics functions meets those goals the best.  The downside are for those systems
that are running 32-bit i486, i586, i686 systems where the default APR configure setting was
not overridden for atomics.  There may be i686 servers still out there using 32-bit web server,
probably memory-constrained systems like VPS hosts; the question is have they overridden the
APR default configuration or not.
> >
> > Should we hold back on fixing this because of these systems?  If we go forward,
should there be something in the release notes warning of this APR configuration issue?
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 7:15 PM, Daniel Lescohier <daniel.lescohier@cbsi.com>
wrote:
> > (continued, hit send too early)
> >
> > %ix86   i386 i486 i586 i686 pentium3 pentium4 athlon geode
> >
> > However, I looked at the CentOS 6 apr.spec, and it's not overriding the default.
> >
> >
> 
> 


Mime
View raw message