httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From <...@covalent.net>
Subject RE: file/mmap buckets, subrequests, pools, 2.0.18
Date Tue, 05 Jun 2001 21:01:01 GMT

> > 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?

Greg's idea requires that more buckets implement the setaside function.
The other idea of just having the sub_request_filter handle the problem
doesn't have that requirement.

Ryan

_______________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom                        	rbb@apache.org
406 29th St.
San Francisco, CA 94131
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Mime
View raw message