httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <...@jaguNET.com>
Subject Re: UDS Patch
Date Mon, 02 Dec 2013 14:14:54 GMT
But from what I see, all of those are during non critical paths.
It's like when workers are being defined, initialized, etc and
that's only done during config or when added via balancer-manager.

On Dec 2, 2013, at 8:09 AM, Marion et Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr>
wrote:

> Hi,
> 
>  
> one of my thought was the change from
> 
>    worker->s->name
> 
> to
> 
>    ap_proxy_worker_name(r->pool, worker)
> 
> in logging function.
> 
> ap_proxy_worker_name allocates memory in the pool and performs some operations on strings
(apr_pstrcat).
> 
>  
> These operations are performed in all cases, even if DEBUG messages are not logged.
> 
>  
> I don't think this should have a real effect on performance. (If I remember well when
I looked at it, there is no ap_log_error calls in sensitive code)
> 
> Just to be sure, you could try to simplify ap_proxy_worker_name in Daniel's build to
remove the apr_pstrcat and check performance with his build.
> 
>  
> Should you and Daniel have different logging levels, it could explain why you don't measure
the same discrepancy.
> 
>  
>  
> Just my 2 cents.
> 
> If I have time, I'll give another look tonight.
> 
>  
> CJ
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > Message du 02/12/13 13:46
> > De : "Jim Jagielski" 
> > A : dev@httpd.apache.org
> > Copie à : 
> > Objet : Re: UDS Patch
> > 
> > OK, I can't by inspection or by test see any performance
> > differences between the 2 implementations (in fact,
> > the older one, in some benchmarks, was slower due to
> > the string operations in the critical path)...
> > 
> > Any ideas?
> > 
> > On Nov 26, 2013, at 4:23 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> > 
> > > Thx... the key is httpd-2.4.6-uds-delta.patch and
> > > that shows nothing, that I can see, which would
> > > result in the "old" being faster than the "new"...
> > > especially in the critical section where we do
> > > the apr_sockaddr_info_get() stuff...
> > > 
> > > On Nov 26, 2013, at 3:07 PM, Daniel Ruggeri wrote:
> > > 
> > >> I reapplied the patches in order to 2.4.6 before r1531340 was added to
> > >> the proposal. Attached are the three diff's of use:
> > >> httpd-2.4.6-uds-original.patch - Everything in the backport proposal up
> > >> to (but not including) r1531340 sans the stuff that doesn't fit
> > >> httpd-2.4.6-uds-new.patch - The 2.4 patch proposed with r1511313 applied
> > >> first. Note that this doesn't include r1543174
> > >> httpd-2.4.6-uds-delta.patch - The delta between the two modified trees
> > >> 
> > >> --
> > >> Daniel Ruggeri
> > >> 
> > >> On 11/22/2013 5:27 PM, Daniel Ruggeri wrote:
> > >>> Sorry, I thought the diffs I sent off list were good enough. I'll have
> > >>> to see if I even still have the original build lying around.
> > >>> Effectively, I just took the list of patches in the backport proposal
> > >>> and applied them one at a time to the 2.4.6 sources. If I can't find
the
> > >>> build, I'll do the same over and send that instead.
> > >>> 
> > >>> --
> > >>> Daniel Ruggeri
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > > 
> > 
> >


Mime
View raw message