httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ian Holsman <I...@cnet.com>
Subject RE: file/mmap buckets, subrequests, pools, 2.0.18
Date Tue, 05 Jun 2001 20:49:39 GMT


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg Stein [mailto:gstein@lyra.org]
> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 3:18 PM
> To: new-httpd@apache.org
> Subject: Re: file/mmap buckets, subrequests, pools, 2.0.18
> 
> 
> On Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 10:13:30AM -0700, Ian Holsman wrote:
> > couldn't we have it so that the 'sub-handlers' request pool 
> is joined with/the same as the main request's pool,
> > (this is different to the 'connection' pool right?)
> > 
> > so that sub-requests live for the life of the request... 
> > It looks like that is what the function apr_pool_join does 
> in 'debug' mode
> 
> No... The whole point of having a subrequest pool is so that 
> we can trash it
> when the subrequest is done. If a request ran 1000 subrequests (it can
> happen with a large directory processed by mod_autoindex), 
> then you would
> end up with a HUGE waste of memory in the request pool.

> 
> Passing a pool to setaside() should allow us to migrate a 
> bucket from one
> pool/lifetime (the subrequest) to another pool/lifetime (the 
> request or the
> connection depending on who does a setaside and where they 
> want to put it).
> 

ok thats sounds fair..

the only problem i can see is that most bucket types don't implement the setaside function
is implementing the setaside (with a pool) going to fix the mod_include problem of not
having the buckets passed back?



> Cheers,
> -g
> 
> -- 
> Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
> 

Mime
View raw message