Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 65885 invoked by uid 500); 24 Nov 2001 01:27:03 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 65874 invoked from network); 24 Nov 2001 01:27:03 -0000 Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 17:23:57 -0800 From: Brian Pane Subject: Re: [PATCH] time-space tradeoff (reuse tpool, one CV per worker thread) To: dev@httpd.apache.org Message-id: <3BFEF6AD.7090700@pacbell.net> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.5) Gecko/20011012 References: <3BFE0162.4040506@pacbell.net> <20011123174517.1635746DFD@koj.rkbloom.net> <20011123114632.W18738@clove.org> <3BFEA791.4050007@pacbell.net> <20011123150137.Y18738@clove.org> <3BFED8D3.6010607@pacbell.net> <3BFEF5D3.8000007@pacbell.net> X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N I wrote: [...] > I just finished profiling the combination of the time-space-tradeoff > worker with thread-private pools, and it does seem to achieve the > intended effect: most of the mutex locking is eliminated. I don't > have before&after throughput data, but I do have profiler data that > shows that the combination of the two patches reduces the time spent > in pool by almost half. ^^^^ I meant to say, "the time spent in pool cleanups." Reducing the total time spent in all pool operations by 50% would be much more difficult. :-) --Brian