httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marc Slemko <>
Date Thu, 16 Apr 1998 05:51:48 GMT
On Wed, 15 Apr 1998, Dean Gaudet wrote:

> Unfortunately though you can't just use these preconstructed headers as
> part of a writev(), each reader has to copy them.  This is because the
> writev() has an unbounded time limit, and you don't want to have an
> unbounded cycle of buffers.

Hmm.  If pointer assignment was atomic you could writev it.  This is an
atypical situation because here all you need is atomic updates; you don't
care if the time changes between when you do the writev() and when it is
sent.  Well, you could care in some situations I guess but I don't know
that you can guarantee that if you need it in the current code.  But just
copying it is probably cheaper than trying to avoid it.

> I can probably work this into SHARED_TIME.
> But yeah it's worth 1 to 2% probably -- strftime() shows up fairly high
> in the profile.

I'm betting the whole (hard to implement) deal of being able to cache much
of the request processing for static content would give a lot more than
that.   But that isn't easy to get right without too many bad tradeoffs.

Fun toys to look into if I had a few weeks to sit around with Apache.

View raw message