apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel Lescohier <daniel.lescoh...@cbsi.com>
Subject Re: time caching in util_time.c and mod_log_config.c
Date Wed, 04 Dec 2013 16:19:54 GMT
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