Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 52886 invoked from network); 27 Dec 2009 14:41:51 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 27 Dec 2009 14:41:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 44699 invoked by uid 500); 27 Dec 2009 14:41:50 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 44615 invoked by uid 500); 27 Dec 2009 14:41:50 -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: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 44606 invoked by uid 99); 27 Dec 2009 14:41:50 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 27 Dec 2009 14:41:50 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of apache-dev@m.gmane.org designates 80.91.229.12 as permitted sender) Received: from [80.91.229.12] (HELO lo.gmane.org) (80.91.229.12) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 27 Dec 2009 14:41:42 +0000 Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.50) id 1NOuIt-00013X-SW for dev@httpd.apache.org; Sun, 27 Dec 2009 15:41:07 +0100 Received: from adsl-154-196-16.ard.bellsouth.net ([72.154.196.16]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 27 Dec 2009 15:41:07 +0100 Received: from poirier by adsl-154-196-16.ard.bellsouth.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 27 Dec 2009 15:41:07 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: dev@httpd.apache.org From: Dan Poirier Subject: Re: Per module LogLevel configuration Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2009 08:39:48 -0600 Lines: 32 Message-ID: References: <200912231314.47323.sf@sfritsch.de> <4B3553BC.5050900@rowe-clan.net> <4B3703C1.5040303@rowe-clan.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: adsl-154-196-16.ard.bellsouth.net User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (darwin) Cancel-Lock: sha1:yd8o4c3McBdSBoQ9KS+XGlaP59o= Sender: news "William A. Rowe Jr." writes: > Dan Poirier wrote: >> "William A. Rowe Jr." writes: >> >>> One thing we should refactor is 'debug' logging. Proper debug >>> logging is log early and often, but there is overhead involved >>> in preparing the args and submitting the log request, only to have >>> it fall on deaf ears. >>> >>> If we are doing any significant 2.0 refactoring, toggling the >>> truly-debug log level processing at compile time would be a big win. >> >> Do we have some measurements of how much overhead this adds? > > Of course not, since it varies wildly by what is being logged. But just > the preparation can consume double buffers/invoke a copy with the simple > presence of an LF character. Looking at log_error_core(), it appears that if the logging level is set to disallow a particular message from being logged, that log_error_core() returns before doing any argument processing. So the overhead would only consist of a few function calls, and my sense would be that saving that wouldn't make a big difference. Of course common sense is notoriously unreliable in making judgments about performance :-), but this does make me even more interested in seeing some evidence of significant improvement before we make major changes in this area at the expense of making problem determination more difficult. Dan