httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <>
Subject Re: Performance fix in event mpm
Date Fri, 28 Jan 2011 13:42:27 GMT
I was going to submit it as a backport, yes.

On Jan 27, 2011, at 9:08 PM, David Dabbs wrote:

> I see that the changes described below were applied to the trunk worker and
> event MPM code.
> Would you consider applying it to the 2.2x branch? I will do so myself and
> test in my env.
> Many thanks,
> David Dabbs
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Jagielski [] 
> Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 12:43 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Performance fix in event mpm
> On Jan 27, 2011, at 1:31 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> On Jan 27, 2011, at 12:21 PM, Jim Van Fleet wrote:
>>> I have been developing an application using apache 2.2 on linux 2.6.  My
> test environment creates a very heavy workload and puts a strain on every
> thing.  
>>> I would get good performance for a while and as the load ramped up,
> performance would quickly get very bad.  Erratically, transactions would
> finish quickly or take a very long time -- tcpdump analysis showed
> millisecond or seconds between responses. Also, the recv queue got very
> large.
>>> I noticed that ap_queue_pop removes elements from the queue LIFO rather
> than FIFO.  Also noticed that apr_queue_pop uses a different technique which
> is not too expensive and is fifo, so I changed ap_queue/pop/push to use that
> technique and the receive problems went away.
>>> Please let me know if you think this change is appropriate and/or if
> you'd like more data
>> Hmmm.... Not sure why the fdqueue would be LIFO. But certainly
>> the above ain't right for pop! :)
> OK, looking over the history, it looks like the Q was changed from
> FIFO to LIFO ~10years ago (worker)... The reasoning:
>  This is a rather simple patch that may improve cache-hit performance
>  under some conditions by changing the queue of available worker threads
>  from FIFO to LIFO. It also adds a tiny reduction in the arithmetic that
>  happens in the critical section, which will definately help if you have
>  a lame compiler.
> Seems to me that changing back to FIFO would make sense, esp
> with trunk. We can profile the expense of the '% queue->bounds'
> but it seems to me that if it was really bad, we'd have seen it
> in apr and changed it there... after all, all we're doing
> with that is keeping it in bounds and a comparison and subtraction
> would do that just as well...

View raw message