httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <...@jagunet.com>
Subject Re: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=602469
Date Sat, 08 Dec 2007 18:12:40 GMT

On Dec 8, 2007, at 11:39 AM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
>>
>> The reason why the current code handles FLUSH separately
>> is though, yes, the ap_pass_brigade is done at the end of
>> the while loop, that is *only* done when we're done handling
>> the full brigade... The intent was to honor flushes in the
>> brigade "immediately" and "reset" at that point... Not sure
>> why this was removed, since the old way is more efficient.
>>
>
> In fact the patch does all this as it passes the passbb brigade down
> the chain after *each* processed bucket of the original brigade
> (the ap_pass_brigade is at *the end* of the while loop *not* after
> the while loop).
> So we don't process the whole brigade before passing it down the
> chain which would be indeed insane.

I didn't catch that when looking over the actual patch itself. Seeing
the actual code in trunk, yeah, this is better.

>
>> I also see that AP_MIN_BYTES_TO_WRITE is no longer being
>
> I saw no need for us to do *any* buffering in the filter. If the
> data passed down the chain is not reasonable large for sending over
> the wire the core network filter will take care of this and buffer
> it until it is reasonable or a flush bucket is seen.
>
>> used at all... I'm guessing MAX_BUCKETS is designed to
>> "replace" that?? Again, the idea is to avoid extremely
>> large in-process data sizes :) The MAX_BUCKETS seems
>
> The patch does that :-).
>
>>

+1

Mime
View raw message